Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Bill read a Second time and committed.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION (LOTTERIES) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 16th March.

CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

Bills to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and committed.

ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AS MEASURED BY STANDARD
MAN-DAYS AT JUNE, 1970*








England
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland








Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.


Livestock and Livestock Products†




…
49
79
58
75


Cereals
…
…
…
…
…
14
4
12
4


Horticultural Products


…
…
…
18
3
8
3


Other Crops‡

…
…
…
…
19
14
22
18


Total

…
…
…
…
100
100
100
100


* On holdings with significant agricultural output.


† It is not possible to distinguish clearly livestock
products from livestock.


‡ Mainly grass and other forage crops and cash root crops.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Agricultural Activity

Captain Orr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of total agricultural activity in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively, is concerned with each of the following, namely, livestock, livestock products, cereals and horticultural products.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): Since the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain Orr: Whilst I await the OFFICIAL REPORT with interest, will my hon. Friend confirm that at least the figures show the unique dependence of Northern Ireland agriculture upon livestock, and therefore, upon cereal imports? As diversification is almost impossible, what consideration is being given to this matter in the present E.E.C. negotiations?

Mr. Stodart: It is true, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, that livestock products form an extremely high proportion of agricultural activity in Northern Ireland—75 per cent. of all her output, second only to Wales. There is an awareness of the regional problems in the E.E.C. negotiations, and the Northern Ireland Government have made proposals for new schemes to help offset the higher food costs in Northern Ireland.

The information is as follows:

Farm Amalgamations

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advisory services he operates to assist in farm amalgamations.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Advice is given by staff of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service as part of their normal duties.

Mr. Eadie: Has the Minister any information that our application to join the E.E.C. has had any undue influence on farm amalgamations?

Mr. Stodart: I do not think that the application has had any effect upon the rate of amalgamation. My right hon. Friend is reviewing the whole policy on amalgamations to see whether we can make it more effective.

Horticultural Producers (Taxation)

Mr. Tom King: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from horticultural producers that they should be permitted to carry forward losses or profits to the next year, in view of the particular problems of the industry.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I have received representations on this subject from the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. King: While I appreciate that this is not an original suggestion, does not my hon. Friend agree that, in the light of both the E.E.C. negotiations and my right hon. Friend's exhortations to greater specialisation in this area, the proposal must receive much more serious consideration?

Mr. Stodart: I hope that this will not disappoint my hon. Friend, but I think that I should not express views on this matter as a Question is down to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer today.

Food Prices

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the percentage effect of shop assistants wage increases, raw material costs and food manufacturers' costs, respectively, in relation to

the total increase in food prices between 1964 and 1970.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): The available figures do not enable this breakdown to be made.

Mr. King: Put another way, by how much has consumer expenditure on food increased compared with farmers' incomes? Will not those figures show that whilst almost everyone else—the shopkeeper, the wholesaler, the taxman and the transport man—has had his hand in the till, the farmer has had an extraordinarily small share?

Mr. Prior: What the figures show is that consumer expenditure over that period rose by £1,376 million. Over roughly the same period the value of farm sales rose by £345 million, and net farm income by £58 million. So the figures show conclusively that the farmers' share of the increase in consumer expenditure was very small.

Mr. James Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that consumers are prepared to pay reasonable prices to give shop assistants a living wage? Does he also recognise that the consumers object to the fact that they were advised that there would be a cut in prices "at a stroke" and that this has not happened?

Mr. Prior: What the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do is to recognise that the shop assistants should have a reasonable wage, and, of course, that means again increases in wages and increases in prices.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of food, as measured by the retail prices index in the seven months 1st July, 1970, to 31st January, 1971; and what were the comparable figures for each of the previous six years.

Mr. Prior: The Food Index increased by 3·8 per cent. between 16th June, 1970, and 19th January, 1971. In the same period of the previous year there was an increase of 1·1 per cent. I shall, with permission, circulate the figures for the five earlier years in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer.


What effect is his policy of competition having on price increases in the food sector?

Mr. Prior: The policy of competition is working as well as can be expected[Laughter.]at a time of rampant inflation. As the hon. Gentleman may have heard before, one man's wage increase is another man's price increase, and the whole nation suffers from a price increase.

Mr. Kinsey: Will my right hon. Friend make a comparison with the first six months of the year under the Labour Administration, when the food index prices went up 5·1 per cent.? Will he continue to press his right hon. Friends to reduce taxation which was loaded on to food prices by the Labour Government?

Mr. Prior: There is no doubt that increased taxes of one sort or another, whether in the form of selective employment tax or the effects of the Transport Act, during the period of office of the Labour Government did much to increase prices and this has been carried forward into our term of office. However, I am certain that over a period of years we shall do better than the record of the former Administration, when prices rose by over 25 per cent. in five years.

Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that non-seasonal foods, which form the bulk of most people's purchases, went up 6·6 per cent. since June and went up by a full 1 per cent. from mid-December to mid-January? Since the food index is not yet picking up the impact of decimalisation, nor the further increases which the Minister warned us were coming, does he not feel that if he continues to fail to intervene the increases in retail food prices at the end of the first year of this Government will be unparalleled?

Mr. Prior: It is extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen opposite can still call for intervention, in view of their abject failure to control prices during their period of office. When the hon. Gentleman says That we have not yet felt the effect of decimalisation, how does he know? On the whole, our evidence is that decimalisation has gone extremely quietly and that very few price increases have resulted from it. As for the last part of the question, some of the increases in recent months were those to which I was

referring on 19th January when I said that some increases were still to come.

Following is the information:
The changes in the Food Index between mid-June and mid-January were:

Per cent.


June,
1964–January,
1965
…
+1·1


June,
1965–January,
1966
…
+0·4


June,
1966–January,
1967
…
-0·7


June,
1967–January,
1968
…
-0·6


June,
1968–January,
1969
…
+1·6

Building Plot, Peacehaven

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reconsider his decision compulsorily to acquire for £3 a plot of building land at Peacehaven owned by a resident in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, particulars of which have been sent to him.

Mr. Prior: This small plot of 1/17th of an acre was acquired in 1960 in order to amalgamate it with neighbouring land and keep it in agricultural use. It is still used for this purpose. The compensation was assessed as the fair price by the Lands Tribunal, and I regret that it is not open to me to increase the assessment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thank my right hon. Friend for the personal trouble which I know he has taken over this case. Is it not the case that if the law is such as to produce this legalised robbery, surely that is an overwhelming argument for early amendment of the law and suspending action over this plot until the law has been properly amended?

Mr. Prior: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on putting down an agricultural Question. He will appreciate that there is a general code of compensation which applies to all these cases. I have no evidence that the code was not correctly applied, and it would be a very grave matter to seek now to over-rule the findings of the Tribunal. But I have noted what he has said and would like to consider it further.

Agricultural Expansion

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what means Her Majesty's Government will finance their policy of expanding agricultural production in view of the Government's policy of giving more freedom to the agricultural industry and enabling farmers to obtain their return


from the end product; and if he will allow the industry to have more freedom in marketing these products.

Mr. Prior: When a comprehensive levy system is introduced, it is the intention to set minimum import prices which should enable efficient farmers to secure better returns from the market and so to finance increased production. The system should also allow the industry greater freedom in marketing.

Mr. Mills: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the previous Administration, British agriculture is not in a position at present to finance this forward movement of production which we all want? Although he rightly asks agriculture to stand on its own feet, would he not also agree that if it is to do so it must be given freedom to market its own products?

Mr. Prior: The first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question relates really as much as anything to the problem of inflation, and that is a problem from which the whole country is suffering and which we must get on top of as soon as possible. I have an open mind on the subject of marketing and I am willing to have discussions with the N.F.U. as soon as the Price Review is over.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does not the policy of the Government mean increased prices for the housewife, and, if so, by how much?

Mr. Prior: That is a completely different question. There are Questions on the Order Paper dealing with that matter later.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the freedom which farmers enjoyed before the last war damaged the agricultural industry almost beyond repair and that the 1947 Act brought security and efficiency to the industry? Will he give an assurance that marketing boards, including the Milk Marketing Board, will not be abolished?

Mr. Prior: As far as I am concerned, I am ready to give the assurance the right hon. Gentleman asks for in respect of the existing boards for milk, potatoes and hops. As I have already said, I am

prepared to consider any views put to me by the N.F.U. or others.

Fowl Pest

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effects of fowl pest during the 12 months ended 28th February, 1971 both ad valorem and in relation to numbers of birds lost; how this compares with those for earlier periods; and what are the results of vaccination.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Since 1963 no information has been available on the number or value of birds lost as a result of fowl pest. However, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the annual numbers of outbreaks and birds involved in that period. As for the effect of vaccination, losses in infected flocks which were properly vaccinated have in almost all cases been very substantially lower than in unvaccinated flocks.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that the ravages are now appalling? Has he learnt of the case in my constituency where 86,000 birds were lost in a single incident? Is he aware that in the last few days there have been numerous cases in Northumberland and Durham? Is it not time the Government gave a lead in this matter and insisted compulsorily on vaccination with the latest and best vaccines available?

Mr. Stodart: It would not be practicable to insist on compulsory vaccination because the policing required would make such demands on manpower that it really could not be enforced. It is true that there have been over 5,000 outbreaks now and it is a tragedy that only 11 per cent. of the flocks have been fully vaccinated. If it is any satisfaction to my hon. Friend, in Worcestershire, at least, that figure is 18 per cent. and I commend the county for it. The message which must be given is that vaccination must be done.

Mr. Rankin: Now that these birds are to be herded in cages the size of which is still undefined, can the hon. Gentleman assure us that there will not be an even greater danger of fowl pest outbreaks with the birds being kept so closely together?

Mr. Stodart: I can hardly imagine that the disease could be much worse than in this present epidemic.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: On 9th February my hon. Friend said that 85 per cent. of affected flocks had not been vaccinated, adding that vaccination is vital. Will he consider possible compensation for farmers whose flocks are known to have been properly vaccinated but who suffer losses? Would this not be a useful inducement to get 100 per cent. vaccination?

Mr. Stodart: In nearly every case in which it has been claimed that a flock has been fully vaccinated in accordance with instructions, investigation has shown that this was not so. I am afraid that I cannot give any assurance or any indication that we would be prepared to go back to the policy of 1963.

The following is the information:


Year March—February
Number of outbreaks
Total number of birds involved


1964
…
…
2,697
Not available


1965
…
…
1,527
Not available


1966
…
…
330
Not available


1967
…
…
200
3,702,233


1968
…
…
169
3,465,918


1969
…
…
92
1,120,034


1970
…
…
22
295,829


1971
…
…
5,267
32,974,186

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest weekly figures of fowl pest outbreaks; and what the prospects are of the epidemic ending.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The numbers of outbreaks of fowl pest during the two weeks ending 28th February were 200 and 159 respectively. These are considerably below the peak of 359 in the week ending 10th January, but are still very high. To reduce the risk of the spread of disease to the comparatively disease-free areas in the north and southwest of England and in Wales, my right hon. Friends have made an Order, to come into effect on 8th March, to prohibit the movement of live birds, excluding day-old chicks, into these areas. I will, with permission, circulate details of the areas in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Do my right hon. Friend's statistics show that there was a remarkable effect with the change to live vaccines, and in these circum-

stances is he satisfied that the changeover was made as soon as it should have been?

Mr. Stodart: The change was made as soon as there was an adequate result from the tests which we felt had to be made under working conditions in this country. The matter has been going successfully. We are making experiments with slightly stronger live vaccine, but it is too early to assess the result.

Following is the information:

The Scheduled areas are:

(a) Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland, Durham and the Furness Division of Lancashire;
(b) Cornwall and Devon;
(c) Wales.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Swine Fever and Fowl Pest

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the losses in the quinquennium 1966–1970, respectively, for foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever, and fowl pest, and the aggregate losses for these three diseases; and what consideration he is giving to underwriting losses for these three diseases by an insurance scheme mutually agreeable to all farmers and his Department, and to giving producers security against losses on their farms from swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The losses, excluding staff costs, incurred by the Ministry for the five-year period were £33,232,000 for foot-and-mouth disease, £112,000 for swine fever and £150,000 for fowl pest. It is not possible to assess aggregate losses by the industry and others, as the extent of consequential loss is not known. My right hon. Friend is not considering underwriting farmers' losses from swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease, but insurance is available through commercial channels.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does not my hon. Friend recognise that there is some obvious inconsistency here in that the Government reimburse for losses due to foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever but not for fowl pest? Would it not be a good policy to try to secure a national scheme for insurance of animals and fowl against all these classes of


disease and for all the owners of such animals and fowl to contribute compulsorily to such an insurance scheme?

Mr. Stodart: I put it to my hon. Friend that there is compensation by the Government for foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever and that that is better than insurance so that the Government may have a free hand to slaughter. I would not rule out applying his idea to other diseases where it was more appropriate, but I must point out that the policy of slaughter and compensation did not work in 1963 and that the best insurance is vaccination. That is proved by the fact that the figure of outbreaks was about 2,000 a year in 1963 and fell to under 40 in 1969.

Mr. Bob Brown: Is there anything at present to prevent farmers from insuring against these losses? Is the hon. Gentleman certain that farmers can get hold of a reliable insurance company?

Mr. Stodart: I understand that commercial insurance against fowl pest is no longer available.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is virtually impossible to get any kind of insurance for fowl pest regardless of whether one goes for the dead vaccine or not? While ruling out compensation, does not he agree that there is a difficult position for poultry farmers when there is no form of insurance available, save the dead vaccine, which is not as effective as all that?

Mr. Stodart: I can only tell my hon. Friend again that the success of the vaccination policy can be judged by the figure of outbreaks, which fell so substantially when vaccination was done. I am afraid that it is the fact that people have become slightly casual about it that really is responsible for the present outbreak.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the replies to Questions Nos. 7 and 8, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Food (Date Marking)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to ensure that consumers purchasing food in shops can know, from the labelling on

the products, what is the last date upon which it should be consumed to ensure that it is safe.

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to require the brewers to label all their bottled beers with an uncoded indication of the date on which the beer was placed in the bottle.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reply he has now received from the Food Standards Committee about the question of open date stamping of perishable food products.

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to compel retail establishments selling pre-packaged and convenience foods to give direct date stamps on such items or to compel any codes used to be publicly displayed on their premises; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report of the Food Standards Committee following its reconsideration of the need for open date stamping of perishable food.

Mr. Prior: I have now consulted the Food Standards Committee on this question. In an interim report, which I have made available in the Library, the committee recommends that in view of developments since 1964 it wishes to review the whole question of date marking of food. It considers it essential to invite evidence from all interested parties. I propose to accept this recommendation.

Mr. Davidson: Aside from his having ruined my supplementary question, is the Minister aware that this is a substantial step forward? Will he accept that, for example, Marks and Spencer's has already announced that it will put date stamps on food, so that this is possible? Will he further accept that there is overwhelming evidence that the public has a right to know that the food it is buying is safe beyond any doubt and is not likely to be mouldy?

Mr. Prior: It might be dangerous if I were to go quite as far as the hon.


Gentleman has gone because, as the Consumer Council report some months ago said, this is a superficially attractive idea. It is right that it should now be examined properly once more, and I would not want to prejudge any decision likely to be reached.

Dr. Gilbert: While I welcome the Minister's statement, may I ask for an assurance that this will not be just one more example of a situation in which the brewers alone are exempt from the labelling requirements of this country?

Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman drinks a bad bottle of beer good luck to him. [Interruption.]

Mr. Hunt: Will the Committee be seeking evidence from overseas, from countries such as France and Germany where open date stamping is working smoothly and effectively to the benefit of suppliers, retailers and customers?

Mr. Prior: Yes. The Committee will be free to take evidence from whatever source it wishes, including health departments, both at home and overseas and international organisations. It will start by inviting the Association of Public Health Inspectors to give oral evidence at its next meeting on 22nd March.

Mrs. Butler: In view of the public interest in this question, can the Minister say whether this inquiry will be making its report reasonably soon because it would be unfortunate for consumers and traders if the proceedings dragged on for an undue length of time?

Mr. Prior: I recognise the importance of what the hon. Lady has said but if we are to have a proper report on this it will take some time to collect all the information. I think it would be unlikely to be less than a year. It would be better if a proper job were done rather than hurrying this.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Early Day Motion on page 6635 of today's Order Paper? Is he further aware that in the national health survey of the Public Health Inspectors Association report there is conclusive evidence—this is why this matter is imperative—that stocks are being moved from shop to shop until they are sold?

Mr. Prior: This is what is known as the "sale or return racket." This is against the law in so far as it does not comply with the Food and Drugs Act. I am aware of my hon. Friend's complaint, and this will be taken into consideration by the Committee.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert), who put a reasonable question, was totally unworthy of a Ministerial reply? Will he now be good enough to give a reasonable reply? Secondly, is he aware that the information he gave about the length of time that this inquiry will take is rather disquieting? Will he give the House an assurance that he will consider, at his discretion, making an interim report and publishing it because of the great public concern over this important question?

Mr. Prior: I recognise that there is great public concern on this matter. On the other hand, the public must understand that a storage condition by itself is absolutely meaningless because it depends very much on the method under which the food is being kept and stored. There are, therefore, two sides to this question, as was put forward by Focus, the Consumer Council publication, in February, 1970.
If I gave a flippant answer to the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) about beer, I apologise.

European Economic Community

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Government policy on compensation for those sections of horticulture that would be adversely affected by Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend has already made known his readiness to discuss with the leaders of the industry what help the Government can give in the case of growers faced with difficult problems of adjustment on entry to the European Economic Community. The time to carry this further will be after the transitional arrangements for horticulture have been settled.

Mr. Wells: While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the breadth of his answer, can we be reasonably assured that all sectors will be included in this review? When my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) first outlined it some years ago he clearly had glass in mind. Can we be assured that all sectors will be fully considered?

Mr. Stodart: My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he is ready to discuss with the leaders of the industry any problems of this kind which they wish to raise.

Mr. Hayhoe: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether he will specify the article of the Treaty of Rome, or regulation, which lays down that a high proportion of the Community budget should be spent on agricultural support.

Mr. Prior: There is nothing in the Community's legislation which lays down that a high proportion of the budget should continue to be spent on agricultural support.

Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does it not show how misleading are some of the comments of those who say that our entry into the Common Market will be merely a method of subsidising the inefficient producer on the Continent? Are there not influential voices already within the Community arguing for a higher proportion of the Community budget to be used on non-agricultural matters such as regional policy?

Mr. Prior: The proportion of the budget devoted to industrial, regional and social policy could well be increased, and we certainly would want to see increases in those areas.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister give the Government's reaction to the overnight news from Brussels about the length of the transitional period in which we shall be allowed to adjust to Common Market price levels? What representations is he making to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on behalf of the British housewife?

Mr. Prior: These are proposals which I understand emanate from Brussels, and

they are counter-proposals to the ones which we have already put to the Commission and to the Community. I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of them and will be taking them into account.

Mr. Hayhoe: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what machinery exists within the European Economic Community to guarantee producer prices for farmers; and how these producer prices compare to the average received by farmers in this country now.

Mr. Prior: The mechanisms used to support prices under the common agricultural policy include levies on imports, intervention on the market, and restitution payments on exports. Their target and intervention prices are in general higher than our guaranteed prices, as was shown in the detailed reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) on 9th November last.—[Vol. 806. c. 46–8.]

Mr. Hayhoe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these higher producer prices will be a great spur to our agricultural community and may well lead to higher productivity? Will he confirm that some of the difference between our food prices and the higher food prices on the other side of the Channel is due to the less efficient retail and distributing mechanisms over there?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. There is no doubt that our systems of food manufacture, distribution and retailing are far in advance of those in the Common Market area. Certainly I should think that British agriculture with its efficiency would increase production very considerably given the price levels that rule in the Common Market.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that in no sense can E.E.C. farmers be said to have a guaranteed price as British farmers have? Does he not agree that the inevitable consequence of entry into the Common Market is that farmers will have to accept prices which are subject to much sharper fluctuations?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there are no guaranteed prices as such, but the intervention price levels are higher than our guaranteed prices are now by quite some margin. Of course, in a market economy


there would tend to be more fluctuations, but the hon. Gentleman must know that even under our system there are considerable fluctuations.

Mr. Body: Does my right hon. Friend agree with that part of Dr. Mansholt's report which says that the cost of agricultural support in E.E.C. will continue to rise until the price mechanism is allowed to work in the case of surpluses, by which he clearly meant lower prices?

Mr. Prior: It would obviously suit the book of this country for price levels within the Common Market to be restrained. This has happened over the past few years, and, as a result, a good many of the surpluses are no longer present. I should have thought that some of the less fortunate parts of the common agricultural policy are now being brought under control.

Mr. Hooson: Does not the Minister agree that in the hill and marginal areas farmers depend not only on producer prices but on grants and subsidies? Would it not be helpful if he were to publish a list of those subsidies and grants which would still be valid under the Common Market system?

Mr. Prior: Some of our grants and subsidies would undoubtedly still be valid under the Common Market system. Individual countries in the Common Market have their own national policies for other areas, but I would not necessarily want to encourage that. I should like to consider further the point the hon. and learned Gentleman has made.

Horticulture (Orchard Grubbing Grant)

Mr. Tom King: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about improved grubbing-up grants for horticulture.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce his proposals for improved grants for orchard grubbing.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement on the future of the orchard grubbing grant. He will do so as soon as he can.

Mr. King: May I ask my hon. Friend to communicate to his right hon. Friend the necesssity for ensuring that at the very least the grubbing-up grants compare favourably not with the present level but with those operating with the Commission in Europe? Would he also see that they are available to cover all types of fruit?

Mr. Stodart: I have so communicated.

Trawling Industry (Subsidy Policy)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the result of his review into the operating subsidy for the deep sea fishing fleet after mid-1971.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will be meeting with the British trawling industry to discuss his review of subsidy policy.

Mr. Prior: I cannot yet say, but I shall be in touch with the industry as soon as possible.

Mr. McNamara: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes discussions will start? Can he give an undertaking first, that the principles upon which the subsidy operates will remain the same and, secondly, that there will be more money available for the industry in view of its increasing costs?

Mr. Prior: Consultations with the industry will be taking place before long. It would be wrong of me to prejudge those consultations by giving the hon. Gentleman the assurances for which he asks.

Mr. James Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is the important year for the Common Market negotiations? Will he give the House an assurance that he will keep in the closest touch with all sections of the fishing industry—owners, unions, merchants and the like? Will he afford to them the care and courtesy which he gives to the N.F.U. when he discusses the annual Price Review?

Mr. Prior: The care and courtesy with which I consult the N.F.U. remains a matter of some conjecture. Certainly I am willing at all times to discuss the


problems of the fishing industry with all sections of that industry.

White Fish Authority

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a further statement on the future of the White Fish Authority.

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. As I told the hon. Member on 19th January, the position remains as stated in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 17th December.—[Vol. 809, c. 237.]

Mr. McNamara: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the time is passing? Is he aware that there is uncertainty, and that people would like to know definitely what is the position about the White Fish Authority? When are we to have a definitive statement?

Mr. Prior: There was a statement on 17th December which I thought was pretty clear. Any further statement must await completion of the review of Government-aided research and development and also clarification of the E.E.C. aspects. Until these two items are cleared, there will be no further statement on the White Fish Authority.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the White Fish Authority has been unable to deal with applications under the Fishing Vessels Scheme since his directive freezing these applications as far back as 27th October? The White Fish Authority has, therefore, been unable to carry out this important part of its work. As the Minister has now withdrawn his Order, what will be the position of these applications which have been standing idle for so long?

Mr. Prior: I am considering the position further in the light of the Select Committee's comments and the views which have been expressed by hon. Members, and I will make a further statement on this as soon as possible.

Winter Wheat and Spring Cereals

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimates he has made of the acreage of winter wheat planted for harvest this year;
(2) what are the prospects for spring sowings of cereal crops.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The acreage of autumn sown wheat in England and Wales at the December census was 2·3 million acres. Information about the cereals acreage farmers in England and Wales intend to sow in the spring will not be available until the March census figures have been examined.

Sir H. Harrison: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but I am sure he is aware that in the eastern part of England, because of the climatic conditions over which we have no control, in the last three years the harvests have been poor. Is he satisfied that his Department is doing everything to encourage good harvests?

Mr. Stodart: Even with all the ability which my Department has, it is a little difficult for it to encourage a good harvest next August from the weather point of view.

Horticulture (Capital Investment)

Mr. Fell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the level of capital investment in the horticultural industry for the latest available 12-month period compared with the previous five 12-month periods.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The most useful figures I can offer my hon. Friend are those showing the estimated cost of proposals approved for grant under the successive Horticulture Improvement Schemes. I am arranging for these to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Fell: I thank my hon. Friend for those revealing figures. What does he intend to do to help British horticulture, which is in a serious state, if the Government should thrust this nation unwillingly into Europe, thereby crippling much of British horticulture?

Mr. Stodart: I would not for one moment accept the premise that anyone will be thrust unwillingly into Europe. I have already mentioned in reply to a previous Question the discussions which my right hon. Friend has said he is willing to have with the National Farmers' Union on this matter.

Following is the information:

Estimated cost of proposals approved under the United Kingdom Horticulture Improvement Schemes:






£


1965
…
…
…
4,523,000


1966
…
…
…
6,055,000


1967
…
…
…
10,398,000


1968
…
…
…
13,283,000


1969
…
…
…
14,379,000


1970
…
…
…
14,733,000

Note: The Scheme introduced in 1966 was considerably wider in scope than the previous Scheme.

Publications

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has reviewed the various publications issued by his Department.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Yes, Sir. Many are of a high standard, but there is room for significant savings.

Mr. Brewis: While I accept that many of the publications are of a high standard, will my hon. Friend give me some idea what saving he intends to make in money and staff?

Mr. Stodart: I cannot give precise figures. There is little room for a reduction of publications on diseases, grants, safety, subsidies and so on, but certain technical literature will be ceasing. There will be increased emphasis on leaflets for advice, and certain charges will be made for the larger technical publications but not for the advisory ones.

Annual Review White Paper

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

APPLES AND PEARS: COMPARISON OF HOME AND IMPORTED SUPPLIES


Estimated home marketings and imports expressed as a percentage of estimated
total supplies for each month averaged over the three years 1968, 1969 and 1970.






January
February
March
April
May
June


APPLES


Estimated Home Marketings (per cent.)
…
…
…
54
47
27
17
10
5


Imports (per cent.)
…
…
46
53
73
83
90
95


PEARS


Estimated Home Marketings (per cent.)
…
…
…
77
33
8
—
—
—


Imports (per cent.)
…
…
23
67
92
100
100
100






July
August
September
October
November
December


APPLES


Estimated Home Marketings (per cent.)
…
…
…
7
85
92
95
95
94


Imports (per cent.)
…
…
93
15
8
5
5
6


PEARS


Estimated Home Marketings (per cent.)
…
…
…
—
7
57
76
92
94


Imports (per cent.)
…
…
100
93
43
24
8
6


Note: Cider apples and perry pears ate excluded.

Food whether he will ensure that price figures in the forthcoming Annual Review White Paper are published in both £ s. d. and £ p.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The guaranteed prices for 1971–72 will be determined in decimal currency and the approximate £ s. d. equivalents will be published in the White Paper.

Apples and Pears

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish figures on a monthly basis showing the relationship of imported supplies of apples and pears to domestic supplies.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I will, with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT showing, by months. three-year average figures for 1968 to 1970 comparing imports and estimated home marketings of apples and pears.

Mr. Evelyn King: When my right hon. Friend publishes those figures, will he not find that we are wasting large sums of foreign exchange on what we can perfectly well grow ourselves?

Mr. Stodart: In the first five months of the main home marketing season home-grown apples were responsible for 93 per cent. of all supplies and the figure for pears was 72 per cent. In regard to excessive imports, the quotas on non-sterling area imports give some protection, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Following is the information:

Store Cattle (Republic of Ireland)

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the numbers of store cattle imported from Eire in each of the last three years; and how these numbers relate to those laid down in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Prior: In 1970, 506,809 store cattle were imported from the Irish Republic into the United Kingdom, the corresponding figures for 1968 and 1969 being 589,244 and 537,361 respectively. Under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement the Government of the Republic of Ireland undertook to use their best endeavours, consistent with the circumstances of the trade, to ensure that the export of stores to the United Kingdom should not fall below 638,000 head per year.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Could he say whether he is satisfied with the working of this agreement and whether he is either preparing or prepared to renegotiate all or part of it?

Mr. Prior: The present Government since taking office have impressed on the Government of the Irish Republic the need to meet undertakings to the best of their ability. Different aspects of the agreement are of particular interest to each country. It is necessary to consider each aspect against the overall balance of the agreement. I would not want to carry the matter any further today.

PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House a copy of his public speech in Eastbourne to the National Conference of Young Conservatives on 7th February on Her Majesty's Government's policy for industry.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Her Majesty's Government's policy for industry to the Young Conservatives on 7th February at Eastbourne.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic matters made to the Young Conservatives in Eastbourne on Sunday, 7th February.

Mr. Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his speech on economic policies to the Young Conservatives at Eastbourne on 7th February in the Library of the House of Commons.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Young Conservatives at Eastbourne on 7th February, 1971, on Government economic policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I did so two days later, Sir, on 9th February.

Mr. Archer: I thank the Prime Minister for his attention to this matter. Since in that speech he offered as a criterion for public investment the safety and efficiency of the Armed Services, is public investment not also justified to guarantee the safety and efficiency of insurance funds which carry the money of ordinary people? If it is justified as a rescue operation following a financial collapse, is it not also justified while there are some profits to be made?

The Prime Minister: In regard to the question about insurance, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be making a statement after Questions about that specific case. When in that speech I gave criteria I thought I was saying something that must be obvious to everybody in this House, which applies to management, trade unions and Government.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister recall that in that speech he issued a stern lecture to all and sundry to get rid of some of their illusions? Could he set an example today by getting rid of the illusion, first of all, that he ever answers a Question in this House satisfactorily, and, secondly, that Governments are never wrong—when all the evidence points to the fact that they are a disaster?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman used the word "Governments"—in the plural. What I said in that speech was that there were lessons to be learned by Governments on this matter. One is that we cannot secure prosperity by continuing to pour out subsidies at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Barnett: Since the announcement on Friday that the Government intend to use investments grants to improve the deplorably low level of investment, may we take it that the Government have now changed their policy? Do they regard it as better than their policy on tax allowances? Why have they changed?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the situation, which is that in the interim period investment grants are being phased out and investment allowances are to take their place. What my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have done is to advance the payment of the existing investment grant money to improve the liquidity situation. This is necessary because of the state in which companies found themselves following the previous Administration.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Would not the Prime Minister have spoken more profitably on that occasion about some of the illusions he has fostered—for example, the illusion that the policy of the Government will provide "a better tomorrow", or that he would cut prices and unemployment "at a stroke"? Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman suffers from delusions of adequacy?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the particular points made in that speech, he will see how over the last few years they have not been acknowledged and that if we address ourselves to them in the future we shall have a much greater chance of prosperity.

SOUTH AFRICAN PRIME MINISTER (VISIT)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if he will now ask the Prime Minister of South Africa to pay an official visit to the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Davis: Is the Prime Minister aware that the representations made by his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary about the use of South African police in Rhodesia have been totally spurned by the Union Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in the very week that he announced his squalid arms deal with the South African Government, that Government have embarked upon a policy of persecuting Anglican clergymen? If the South African Prime Minister visited this countries, could not the right hon. Gentleman discuss these matters with him?

The Prime Minister: It is not necessary to invite the Prime Minister of South Africa here to do that. We have been carrying on a discussion of these matters through diplomatic channels, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has informed the House. As for the position of British citizens in South Africa, these questions are always taken up by the Ambassador.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would not it be a very good idea to invite Dr. Vorster to visit this country for an exchange of views? Is not South Africa an indispensable ally for the defence of the Indian Ocean, and would not some hon. Members opposite do well to take notice of what a number of French-speaking and English-speaking African leaders are saying, that the way to deal with South Africa is by dialogue and not ostracism?

The Prime Minister: I think that there is a deep division of opinion as to whether the problems of apartheid in South Africa should be dealt with by ostracism or by trying to influence the South African Government to change their policies. This difference of view was clear at the Commonwealth Conference. It is a difference not only between former French and former British countries in Africa but between the former British countries in Africa themselves. But, as I have said, I have no plans to invite the South African Prime Minister here at present.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Are we to take it that, following the statement last week by


the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, there have been formal protests by Her Majesty's Government about the treatment not only of the Dean but also of other clergymen who were harried? Are we also to take it that the Government have formally protested about the expulsion of the priest who was thrown out of South Africa on Thursday or Friday of last week?

The Prime Minister: Some of these cases have been discussed by the Ambassador, obviously, on the instructions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. There have been some cases in which British citizens were not involved and, in the circumstances, we have not been able to take action. If the right hon. Gentleman wants information about specific cases, I will gladly let him have it.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard my question clearly. [Interruption.] I have not had an answer yet. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have wanted to give me an answer if he had heard me properly. I did not ask whether the cases had been taken up with the South African Government. I asked whether there had been any formal protest. In view of the Prime Minister's declaration that he opposes apartheid, which no one questions, did he not feel it appropriate to protest either himself or through his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, about the harrying of clergy, even though they be not of British origin?

The Prime Minister: This is not a procedure which is customarily followed through diplomatic channels. In the case of a Government which follows their own legal process, we have certain consular advantages, which we have used fully, and we are entitled to use them. But we cannot make a formal protest when another sovereign State follows its own process of law.

Mr. Thorpe: If the Prime Minister is not at the moment envisaging extending an invitation to Dr. Vorster to visit this country, is he aware that he himself would receive a very warm welcome in South Africa were he to visit that country? Since he and Dr. Vorster were on different sides in the last war, will he realise that, with the authority of his own very distinguished war record, he would be able

to tell Dr. Vorster how wrong he was in his Nazi sympathies in the war and how wrong he is to perpetuate them now?

The Prime Minister: We are also on different sides on the question of apartheid, and I have always expressed my own views about it publicly. In private, my views are the same. However, a great deal is to be gained by closer contact with South Africa, and this was borne out by the recent visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Mr. Paget: When the World Council of Churches proceeds to finance armed rebellion in South Africa and the invasion of her frontiers, can one really complain about the results of thereby converting dissent into treason? After all, the first Elizabeth in similar circumstances was even rougher with dissident parsons.

The Prime Minister: While I do not dispute the hon. and learned Gentleman's historical references, I prefer not to make a generalisation about the situation in South Africa. It is also true that it depends on one's view of the best method of dealing with apartheid whether one supports freedom fighters. There is great wisdom in the advice which has been given by others outside politics, that one cannot expect freedom fighters to overthrow South Africa. On the other hand, the disadvantages which accrue to other African countries from the activities of freedom fighters do them considerable harm.

ROLLS-ROYCE LIMITED

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment on Rolls-Royce; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There continues to be close co-ordination between all Departments concerned with the affairs of Rolls-Royce.

Mr. Sheldon: Since the Minister of Aviation Supply misled this House on 9th December when he said that the £42 million would be given to Rolls-Royce irrespective of the report of the accountants—[Interruption.]—yes, he did; it


was on 9th December—what does the Prime Minister intend to do for subcontractors and others who will be forced into liquidation as a direct result of misleading Government assurances?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply dealt with this point fully in his speech on Friday in the course of the day's debate dealing with the matter—

Mr. Harold Wilson: No.

The Prime Minister: With respect to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend dealt with it in detail and quoted his original statement which made it clear beyond peradventure. He also explained that he had made a mistake in answering a supplementary question, which he then corrected by writing to the hon. Member concerned. In reply to a later supplementary question, he also made it clear that his original statement was what governed the situation. The position was made quite clear. The Rolls-Royce company and its board were quite clear. Anyone who read the statement in Parliament must also have been clear about it.

Mr. Dalyell: Do the Government have no advice for the sub-contractors?

The Prime Minister: In the debate my right hon. Friend said that most subcontractors will be continuing with the Government-owned firm of Rolls-Royce, in most cases with work which is being carried on. As for the RB211, that remains to be settled as a result of the negotiations which begin today with Lockheed.

SCOTLAND (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the diversity of Ministerial responsibilities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland already has a very wide span of responsibilities, including the co-ordination of the operations in Scotland of all Government Departments concerned with

physical, industrial and economic development. Under successive Administrations other functions have been exercised in Scotland by Ministers whose responsibilities are countywide: but all my right hon. Friends whose responsibilities extend to Scotland work closely with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Eadie: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government are very unpopular in Scotland, where there is great dissatisfaction with them? Is he further aware that the situation is not helped when hon. Members find their Questions shuffled about to other Ministries, especially when they deal with confused development area policies?

The Prime Minister: Successive Governments have examined the question whether Trade and Industry should be a country-wide Department or whether it should be split so that part is in Scotland. I examined this question again when I became Prime Minister. I came to the conclusion which I held previously in 1963, and which was shared by the then Secretary of State and by the present Secretary of State, that on the whole it is more helpful to Scotland to have a country-wide Department concerned with trade and industry.

Mr. Buchan: Is the Prime Minister aware that nearly all his Ministers appear to be on the one committee which is holding back the progress of this Bill enormously? Secondly, will the Prime Minister tell the House which Ministry will be in charge of the selling-off of State pubs to private breweries, because this is of great significance?

Mr. William Hamilton: Mr. Younger.

The Prime Minister: Obviously, that will have to be done through this House. As for the general responsibilities for trade and industry, I repeat that I think that Scotland benefits from having these matters dealt with on a country-wide basis which ensures that development can be handled to her advantage. I had a long discussion recently with the Scottish T.U.C., and there was no request for trade and industry responsibilities as such to be moved to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Prime Minister if he intends to take the chair at the March meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but I expect to do so at the April meeting.

Dr. Gilbert: In view of the fact that at the last meeting of the National Economic Development Council both the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. asked the Government to change their course, and as they are receiving equally unpalatable advice from every other quarter, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will give the House the names of any independent reputable economic institutions either here or abroad which are at present endorsing his policies?

The Prime Minister: It is right that the Government should take note of what is said at "Neddy" meetings by the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., but the final decision on economic policies must, as with every other Administration, rest with the Government of the day. If the hon. Gentleman were to consult many observers in Europe and North America as well as in this country, he would find a great deal of support for the Government's policies.

Mr. Grimond: Has the Prime Minister any plans for discussing with the T.U.C. either some general policy to contain inflation or any policy for expansion?

The Prime Minister: As I said in the economic debate, I am willing to discuss economic policies with the T.U.C. at any time if it wishes to do so. The same applies to the C.B.I. As has just been remarked by the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert), these things have been discussed in "Neddy", which is the natural forum for all three parties to have the fullest possible discussion. This is why I am proposing to take the Chair at the April meeting.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order. Today six Questions were put down to the Attorney-General, none of which was reached. This means that it is virtually impossible to get what I call

sandwich Questions answered orally unless they are brought forward from, say, No. 30 to No. 20. The same thing happens every week. Last week, of 17 Questions put down to the Minister of Overseas Development, only five were answered. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, have no power to order that these Questions be brought forward, but I wonder whether you would suggest to those who arrange the Questions that they bring them forward.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is not a matter for the Chair. The point has been raised before. I do not think that we were unduly dilatory today because 39 Questions have been answered in the 50 minutes or so which were available. I have no doubt that the matter will be noted.

VEHICLE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): With permission, I should like to make a statement.
As hon. Members are doubtless aware, the directors of the Vehicle and General Insurance Company Ltd., announced yesterday evening their intention to petition the court for the compulsory winding-up of the company and of five of its subsidiary companies which carry on largely motor insurance business.
The names of these companies are as follows:
Automobile and General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
General and Commercial Motor Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Metropolitan General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Transport Indemnity Insurance Co. Ltd., and
World Auxiliary Insurance Corporation Ltd.
In order to comply with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1960, motor insurance policies must be issued by authorised insurers who are carrying on motor vehicle insurance business in Great Britain. The policy-holders of the companies in question should, therefore, take out new policies with authorised insurers if they wish their cars to continue to be used on the roads. Both the directors and


the British Insurance Association have already advised policy-holders to obtain cover from other insurers.
I understand that the petitions for winding-up are being presented today, but I cannot forecast the time required by the court to deal with them.
The financial affairs of the company and its subsidiaries have been under close consideration for some time by the Department which has been frequently in touch with the directors. The Department, in compliance with Section 68 of the Companies Act, 1967, on 24th February duly served the requisite notice of 30 days on the companies concerned of the intention of the Department to issue directions restricting the companies from issuing new policies or renewing old policies.

Mr. Benn: The statement which has just been made by the Secretary of State reveals a very serious situation, not least for its general effect on confidence.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman these questions? When did the right hon. Gentleman's Department start investigating the affairs of this company? Did it get adequate information in time to intervene? If not, what was the delay? Was it because information was not available?
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with his powers under the 1967 Act? Exactly how many vehicles are affected? What exactly is the position of those with policies from this company? Will the inquiry be published in due course?

Mr. Davies: My Department has been uneasy about this company for some considerable time. But the uneasiness culminated in July, 1970, when the matter was taken up very vehemently with the company. The discussions and examination of the problem have been continuing since then.
Undoubtedly the inquiry has not advanced at the pace we would have liked. But the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it poses a real dilemma. Once the inquiry becomes public knowledge the whole of the prospects of the company are in any case undermined, so that one has to deal with the pursuit of the inquiry with some care and responsibility. Nevertheless, because of its poor progress, in November last year the Department told the company that an

inquiry under Section 109 of 1967 Act would take place unless the requisite information was forthcoming. It was, and as a result fears arose last month in my Department that this company was not backed by adequate resources to meet its liabilities. This occasioned it to give the company 30 days' notice that it would have to instruct it to cease issuing cover.
That deals with the period over which the inquiry and the discussions have been going on. As I say, adequacy of information was not entirely satisfactory in the early stages.
The 1967 Act gives the powers required, but, as I have mentioned, we are carrying out a thorough-going look at the whole range of company law requirements. This will not escape and will obviously be somewhat intensified by this experience.
I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman about the exact number of vehicles involved. I am not aware of the number, but I have heard that it runs into hundreds of thousands.
An inquiry will certainly be undertaken if the basis for one can be established. I am looking at Section 165 of the Companies Act to see whether inadequate information has been made available to the shareholders by the company, which would then permit me to make such an inquiry.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with the position which he has reported to the House? From the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary answer, in July his Department began to have anxieties which culminated in inquiries in November and a collapse in early March. Surely the object of the 1967 Act was to prevent such a thing happening. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was not able to move for fear of shaking confidence in the company when the outcome is that many people have lost more money, reveals a great failure of the system in that it really did not work. Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to be able to tell the House how many vehicles are insured, since he must have been in contact with the company throughout the six or eight months in which discussions were going on.

Mr. Davies: It is always fairly easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to say that


this should have been the case. The question to which the right hon. Gentleman should address himself is the wisdom of disturbing confidence in a concern which carries a large amount of insurance of this kind if such lack of confidence were not fully justified. It is that particular concern which one has to maintain in mind—and correctly so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the 1967 Act provided me with the power which I thought necessary to keep this kind of matter under scrutiny. I think so. Nonetheless, I would have it scrutinised again within the general examination we are making. This ought to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. I am satisfied that a reasonable and careful examination has been made, and that the Department moved at the appropriate moment and that it would have been in doubt to have moved before.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Although I agree with my right hon. Friend about the immense difficulty of the question of confidence in these matters, could he possibly consider strengthening that part of the Board of Trade which has to deal with this—

Mr. William Hamilton: The hiving-off part.

Mr. Fraser: This is not funny at all—

Mr. Hamilton: No, it is not.

Mr. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend consider that, and would he see fit to have a report given to the House if there were any question of dilatory action?

Mr. Davies: If it is established that an inquiry under the appropriate section of the Companies Act is carried out, I shall no doubt have the opportunity to report to the House in due course.

Mr. Thorpe: What is the position of a policy-holder who either has a claim pending against him or is making a claim against the third party?

Mr. Heffer: He has lost his money.

Mr. Thorpe: Perhaps I might be allowed to continue and address myself to the Minister. Does such a man rank in the bankruptcy as any other creditor, or is there some fall-back cover arrange-

ment, such as the Law Society provides, for the British Insurance Association? If there is not, should there not be so in future?

Mr. Davies: There is such a fall-back cover, but it extends only to the cover of that minimum part of motor insurance which is occasioned with third party premium policies. The Motor Insurers' Bureau does make such a cover in respect of these liabilities. Liabilities in excess of that, which therefore go beyond the minimum cover required by law, will rank as those of ordinary unsecured creditors.

Sir F. Bennett: I was going to ask an almost identical question to that of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). Would the Minister care to remind the House that the fund which is available for this purpose amounts to no less than £5 million from the British Insurers' Association in this matter, so there is no question of third party claimants losing out in this matter?

Mr. Davies: I am grateful for that elaboration. However, it is right to underline the fact that there are claim elements which may be at the moment in force and which will only rank for dividend along with others.

Mr. Carter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last five years or so almost 4 million motorists have lost their cover when insurance companies have gone bankrupt? Does he not think it time that he took action on the basis of a letter which I sent to him last July, urging his Department to carry out an inquiry with a view to bringing forward legislation in order to stop the worst ravages of competition?

Mr. Davies: I have already said that, among the other inquiries which I am making into company laws generally, I will not of course exclude the issues concerning insurance companies, and this should cover that point.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that by far the most anxious aspect of this collapse is the fact that the particular company has grown by 70 times in terms of turnover in just 10 years, which is a rate of growth far greater than in any other comparable company? Has the Board of Trade or


his Department any facility for looking at the accounts of insurance companies at regular intervals, say every 12 months, in order to ensure that they are solvent and that they have adequate reserves to meet their commitments?

Mr. Davies: Of course, I have the right of view of company accounts of all kinds. As regards insurance companies especially, under the provisions of the 1967 Act, and in certain circumstances, I can institute an inquiry which goes very much deeper into the precise nature of the assets which underlie the situation of the company in face of these claims. It was indeed the intention of so doing which provoked this company to putting us in a position to be able to issue the notice which we did last month.

Mr. Darling: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Board of Trade has sufficient powers to move in quickly and to intervene quickly in the affairs of an insurance company if there is a risk of insolvency? Would it be correct to say that in this case part of the delay may have been due to the fact that this insurance company was a member of the British Insurance Association? If this is so—it may not be—would it not be advisable to ask that association to keep the affairs of its member companies under closer and more regular scrutiny, so that membership of the association is not taken to be a guarantee of solvency? They advertise it as such.

Mr. Davies: I do not think that the situation of the Department in relation to an individual company is affected by its membership or not of the British Insurance Association, but I take the point. The B.I.A. sets out to be a trade association and not a guarantee organisation. It should therefore not be mistaken in that rôle. Certainly, it is not so mistaken by my Department.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that his own confidence in this company was such that in July he could make, in his own words, "very vehement" representations, must lead many hon. Members to have very serious doubts on the adequacy of the law to enable him to take the necessary measures to protect policy-holders? Therefore, could he look again at the present state of the law and possibly come

back to the House, after due consideration, to let us know whether he thinks that any changes would be desirable?

Mr. Davies: I would certainly reconfirm to my hon. Friend that that is my intention. The expressions that I used were "uneasy" in July and "vehement representations" in November.

Mr. Bob Brown: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is becoming increasingly obvious that every morning many thousands of motorists leave home not knowing whether when they return they will be covered by motor vehicle insurance? Does he not now believe that it would be right and proper, even though the Government probably for doctrinaire reasons would not want to nationalise the British insurance industry, that the motor vehicle cover should be carried by the State?

Mr. Davies: No, I would not agree with either of those remarks—certainly not with the latter and emphatically not with the former.

Mr. Tapsell: Is it not rather disquieting that a number of other insurance companies should have chosen this morning to announce an increase in their motor insurance premiums? Would one not expect insurance companies to take a rather longer view of what is the profitable level of insurance? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that those who are now in a hurry to transfer their insurance will not run into unreasonable difficulties or tariffs?

Mr. Davies: The tariffs of the insurance companies are a matter for them and not for me. I see no particular importance in the coincidence of the increases stated this morning.

Mr. Ashton: But if the State compels motorists to be insured, as we now do, surely the State has a moral obligation to provide some safeguards and securities. Should we not now be looking at the protections to which motorists are entitled, possibly setting up a scheme in competition run by the State?

Mr. Davies: No, I have great confidence in the British insurance industry. I would remind hon. Members that this industry, which at the moment apparently is a matter for obloquy, is a very big contributor to our invisible account.

Mr. McCrindle: There is no doubt that one of the most disquieting features of the situation is that of the man who, having paid his renewal premium last month, now finds, after only a month has gone by, that he has to replace the cover once again. In the circumstances, would my right hon. Friend consider the imposition of a surcharge on a motor insurance policy, thereby enabling the Motor Insurers' Bureau in an event such as we have experienced this morning to meet not only these residual third party claims but all claims, at least until the expiry of the policy for which a man has paid?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. The Motor Insurers' Bureau properly provides cover for that part of the insurance which is obligatory. I believe that this is the proper course to take, though I can clearly see some advantage, of a purely commercial kind, in relation to what my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Atkinson: As it is essential for motor-car accessories to comply with minimum British Standards Specifications, is it not time that insurance complied with British Standards Specifications, too? If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with this proposition, should it not be implemented by means of a State scheme so as to give a guarantee of security and a fair deal to motorists?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware that there is a stipulated specification in relation to motor insurance and that it is complied with.

Mr. Moate: Would my right hon. Friend make the position absolutely clear to motorists who have been driving with policies issued by these companies? Is he aware of a Press report stating that a special arrangement had been made for a 14-day period by the B.I.A.? Would he confirm that no such arrangement has been made and that anybody driving with such a certificate would be in breach of the Road Traffic Act? In relation to the Motor Insurers' Bureau, would he confirm that the policy-holder is still in the first front line of liability and that when my right hon. Friend uses the term

"third party" he means purely liability for bodily injury?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is correct in the final part of that supplementary question. I am, of course, referring to bodily injury. As for the exact position, technically speaking people who are insured with these companies for these purposes are covered, in theory, until the winding up order has been granted. However, I think that this is a technical situation which should not in any way mask the need, to which I have referred, for such motorists urgently to seek insurance elsewhere.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman now publish the details of all the relations between his Department, himself and the company since last July so that we can assess for ourselves not only the action he has taken but the adequacy of the law, which is there principally to protect policy-holders, many of whom now find themselves in an almost intolerable position for the reason given by, among others, his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate)?

Mr. Davies: I will certainly consider that, but in the light of the conclusion I reach as to the practicability of instituting an inquiry under Section 165 of the Companies Act.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Benn: We are talking not about an inquiry but about the right hon. Gentleman's exercise of his Ministerial responsibilities. That has nothing to do with an inquiry, though we hope there will be one. Will the right hon. Gentleman make available, as part of his accountability to the House, the details of what he and his Department have done in respect of this company in the last six to eight months?

Mr. Davies: That is clearly involved with any inquiry that I might make—[Interruption.]—and I therefore have nothing to add to the assurance I have already given.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter now.

PROTECTION OF PENSION RIGHTS

5.54 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to schemes providing pensions, annuities, retirement and other benefits.
The Bill I hope to have leave to introduce deals with a subject to which I have alluded on a number of occasions in recent years, namely, the need to protect the pension rights of members of occupational pension schemes on change of job.
This is a matter about which there is no dispute as to principle between the parties. The problems, and they are formidable, arise from the difficulties of implementation and timing. I hope that in my Bill I can make three specific recommendations as to implementation which will commend themselves to the House.
First, the Inland Revenue stipulation, generally known as the "mixed benefits rule", should be withdrawn. Under this rule, in the great majority of cases, trustees are unable to give to the employee the benefit of the employer's contributions, even if they wish to do so.
Secondly, the House should take a decision on the vexed question of transferability or preservation. Transferability is the ultimate ideal. It presents formidable difficulties over valuation which have, however, been solved with considerable ingenuity in the public sector. I am bound to admit that in the private sector these problems of valuation still give rise to considerable dispute and anxiety, and I believe that the course I must recommend to the House at this stage is to make preservation compulsory and transferability legal and easy.
If, however, we come to rest simply on preservation of pension rights, then we must recognise that in times of severe inflation the asset left behind by the beneficiary in the scheme of his first employer may dwindle away until it is ultimately worth very little. The recommendation which I am making is that a preserved pension should, in times when interest rates are reflecting the general anxiety of the market about inflation, be required to

be augmented in the hands of the original trustees and that it should not merely be kept at book value.
There is also the thorny question of a man's own contributions to contributory schemes. The best solution we could adopt here is, I believe, in accordance with the principle of the Finance Act, 1970, namely, that all schemes should allow the beneficiary the option to take a lump sum of approximately one-quarter on eventual retirement. If we follow that principle, but make it possible for beneficiaries to draw a lump sum on withdrawal from the scheme at any age, we shall have brought the contributory and non-contributory schemes on to the same footing and will, I think, have found a solution which is acceptable to beneficiaries and easy for trustees to implement.
I come to the difficult question of timing. I understand the objections of people engaged in the management of pension schemes that this is not the moment for a further upheaval. Almost every occupational scheme is now in the course of revising its rules to comply with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1970. This must be understood to be a serious undertaking which is placing considerable strains on trustees, their accountants, actuaries and other advisers.
Moreover, we hope that before the end of this Parliament the Government will have introduced a new Measure covering National Insurance and all earnings-related schemes; this, too, may cause a serious upheaval for the pension movement. Nevertheless I hope that those who feel that this is not the moment to introduce further complications into the management of occupational pension schemes will, when they have studied the recommendations I am making, agree that their implementation would not put any serious additional strain on the trustees of these schemes.
There remains the question of the cost to employers. This has been estimated officially at over £100 million a year over the whole sphere of employment. It is difficult to obtain an accurate estimate of what it would cost employers in the private sector, but I believe that to give transferability would cost about £1 million a week. This is a not inconsiderable sum at a time of financial anxiety.


The good employer is probably already paying £2 or £3 a week into an occupational scheme, on top of wages, for the average employee. The House should, therefore, consider carefully whether this is the moment to add a stipulation which would require the employer to put another 10p, 20p or even 30p a week on to the weekly contribution for the average employee. Indeed, is it right at all that what could be considered retrospective legislation should be introduced in this way by the House?
The reason why the House should act is partly in recognition of the extremely valuable tax concessions which are available to occupational pension schemes. These concessions are given because these schemes are recognised as serving a genuine social purpose. It is, therefore, appropriate that they should alter their rules so as to comply with the general expressions of public opinion in regard to this question of preservation on change of job. We should also look at this question from the side of the beneficiaries. Men and women today are losing their pension rights at a rate of at least £100,000 each working day. That seems to provide the House with a good reason for acting at once. I trust, therefore, that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir B. Rhys Williams, Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Nicholas Edwards, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mrs. Kellett, Mr. McCrindle, Mr. Maude, Mr. Neave, Miss Quennell, Mr. J. T. Price, and Mr. Raison.

PROTECTION OF PENSION RIGHTS

Bill to amend the law relating to schemes providing pensions, annuities, retirement and other benefits, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th March and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [1st March]:
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1971, contained in Command Paper No.4392.․[Lord Balniel.];

Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'while paying tribute to the skill, courage and patience of the British servicemen in Northern Ireland, regrets that Her Majesty's Government arc over-stretching our forces by imposing on them additional and unnecessary tasks East of Suez; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to give a more constructive lead in using the collective strength of the Western Alliance to promote measures of East-West détente and disarmament'․[Mr. George Thomson,].

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

4.2 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): There have long been many, both inside and outside Parliament, who have believed that as broad an agreement as possible ought to be obtained between different parts of the political spectrum on matters of defence. For most of the post-war years this has been possible. We have never gone back to the old joint arrangements of the Imperial Committee of Defence. On the other hand, facilities have been provided by the Government of the day to the Opposition for discussions and information about various aspects of defence. I was able to take advantage of those in my time as Leader of the Opposition, and this afternoon I offer those facilities to the present Leader of the Opposition and to his defence spokesman whenever they wish to take advantage of them.
By and large, where there has been agreement between the different sides of the House, it has been welcomed by the Services, welcomed by our allies, and welcomed by people in Britain. But there is no doubt that since 1968 there has been a growing division between the two sides of the House on some defence matters. In part, this has been the result of the decisions of the previous Government on the withdrawal of forces from


Singapore, Malaysia and the Gulf, about which I shall speak later. There has also been a wider divergence in what I might term the philosophical approach of the parties to Britain's responsibilities overseas. In their last years, the previous Administration pursued policies which confined the military effort of this country almost entirely to Europe. They recognised that Britain had vast economic and political interests outside Europe. But they argued that, in the maintenance of the stability on which those interests depend, the British Armed Forces either could play no useful part or should play no useful part.
On the other hand, we believe and have argued that circumstances today and circumstances of recent history contradict the approach put forward by the previous Government. We consider it to be contrary to the real facts of the modern world. We believe that an intelligent and realistic analysis of British interests in the world today leads inevitably to the conclusion that there are times and places, specifically, where these interests can best be served by defence arrangements outside Europe. This seems to be the difference in approach of the parties over the past few years.
We reject a narrow regionalism in defence, just as we reject regionalism as such in other fields, because we are convinced that it runs counter to the interests and to the character of Britain.
Sometimes this argument for the almost complete concentration of defence in Europe is based on the so-called need to demonstrate our Europeanism in our application to join the European Economic Community. At others, it is said that the Community, whether it is enlarged or not, and the countries around it, are concerned only with Europe and ought to be concerned only with Europe. There is no contradiction between the views which I have expressed about the wider interests of Britain and the fact that there may be times and places where we should safeguard these through forces. There is no contradiction between that and our desire to find acceptable terms for entry into the European Economic Community.
In the 10 or more years in which I have been closely and deeply involved in

European matters, I have never heard the arguments of Europeanism or of regionalism used amongst those whom we wish to join. They recognise that our interests run beyond Europe—indeed, many of them welcome that. France is a country in a similar position to our own, and we have seen the tenacity and skill with which she has maintained her great interests outside Europe. She has found no conflict between that and membership of the Community. This, therefore, is not an argument of substance.
We can safeguard key British interests, often jointly with friends and allies, in other parts of the world at the same time as we fulfil our obligations and maintain our security in Europe. In Europe the foundation of our security is the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, and in it our role is a major one. Among the European members we alone make a contribution to the strategic nuclear forces, and without that contribution the strategic nuclear forces of N.A.T.O. would be a United States monopoly. This is significant not only for us and for Europe but for the Alliance as a whole. It has helped in working out the arrangements for effectively associating all members of N.A.T.O. with nuclear planning. It has also been of importance in the context of the work which has been done and is being done to try to control and limit the spread and development of nuclear weapons, on which the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), who spoke yesterday in the debate, placed great emphasis.
In our contribution to N.A.T.O. this country has consistently set an example to our allies. This is something which we ought to recognise and something to which the right hon. Gentleman in his speech yesterday did not entirely give full consideration.
The proportion of our defence effort which goes to the direct support of N.A.T.O. has steadily increased. In the coming financial year we shall be spending about 5½, per cent. of our gross national product on defence and of that about nine-tenths will be devoted to the support of N.A.T.O. in Europe.
The point which I make to the House, to the country and to our allies is bluntly this: our contribution to N.A.T.O., as a proportion of gross national product, is greater than that of


any of the other major N.A.T.O. Powers. This, therefore, is something of which we can be proud, but which must at the same time be recognised by our allies; and when there are proposals for developments in N.A.T.O. it is not good enough for them to say to Britain every time, "Of course you must contribute more and more in every possible scheme which comes forward." We must have the right to decide in which way we can best make our contribution. That is what the Government have been doing over the past months.
Moreover, we spend a considerable sum—not far short of £150 million a year—across the exchanges to support British forces abroad committed to N.A.T.O. It is therefore the whole picture which needs to be seen by the House, by the country and by our allies in N.A.T.O.
It has been our view that in making a greater contribution to N.A.T.O. it should be done through more forces and more armaments. We hope that European countries will contribute teeth to the Alliance, which is what we ourselves have decided to do. Our first steps as a Government were to make available the squadrons of Jaguars and a reserve armoured car regiment, as well as maintaining the "Ark Royal" in service. We shall now be contributing to the infrastructure part of the Defence Improvement Programme.
Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman said that it seemed to him that we had been slow to take part in this programme. The reason is, as I have explained, that we were already making a major contribution. We added to it teeth for the Alliance. The infrastructure programme could have been carried on by others who were not in a position to do the same as we had done, but our position in the infrastructure part of the Improvement Programme which has now been announced has been facilitated by the understanding which the Germans have shown in the offset negotiations.
Therefore, we have been able to reach a conclusion that is satisfactory both from the point of view of providing additional teeth to the Alliance and helping to provide infrastructure.
We have welcomed the assurances which the American President has given

that under his Administration American troops in Europe will be maintained at their present level, and we accept that continuing United States support is dependent on reciprocal efforts by their European allies. We have shown that we are making our contribution.
So I think this can be summed up by my saying that, despite the fears which have been expressed and the disillusionment which is sometimes said to exist, there is now on both sides of the Atlantic heartening evidence of an increased determination to sustain, convincingly and effectively, the policy of deterrence which the Alliance has pursued during the past 20 years.
If the current negotiations for the enlargement of the European Community succeed, new prospects for European unity will be opened up. We shall then—the members of the Community—increasingly feel the need to develop new methods of working together, not only in foreign policy, where a beginning has already been made by the existing members, but also in defence.
The need for all of us to continue our vigilance and build up our strength will continue. An enlarged European Community and the members of it will have an additional responsibility there. For this reason, as my noble Friend the Minister of State said yesterday, the military expenditure of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact Powers increases steadily by about 6 per cent. a year. My noble Friend gave a detailed account of the comparison between the force strengths and weapon strengths of the Warsaw Pact and the N.A.T.O. Alliance. I thought that the right hon. Member for Dundee, East rather rebuked my noble Friend for giving the House these details, and he condemned the White Paper for what I think he described as a negative approach in setting out the real position and telling the country what the situation is.
The right hon. Gentleman still seemed to think, as some have done before him, that if only we ignore these facts and wish them away somehow a happy state of amity will speedily exist between the two sides of the Iron Curtain. I should have thought that Czechoslovakia would have disabused the right hon. Gentleman of that view. Surely that lesson cannot


have been forgotten already? It is right that the full details should be given.
My experience of relations with the Soviet Union has been this. The Russians continue to build up their military might by every means open to them and to make every advance in technological development—in weapons—with which their scientists can help them. That we must accept. It is right to state the position continually to the best of our knowledge.
Where the Soviets consider that their interests are served in a particular field by an agreement they will negotiate hard and long to get it, as they did on the partial test ban treaty which we helped to negotiate and on the non-proliferation agreement during the time of the last Administration. The Soviets, having driven their bargain, have in recent years stuck to it.
Elsewhere in other fields they are constantly probing their opponents' weaknesses, attempting to get through their guard, always on the look-out for means of bringing pressure to bear upon them.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The Prime Minister is saying that Soviet Russia has negotiated certain agreements which are in its interest. Would it not be in the interests of both Russia and ourselves to go ahead with East-West security arrangements which would reduce troops on both sides? Surely that would be in Russia's material interests and in ours. Therefore, why denigrate attempts to move in that direction?

The Prime Minister: I will deal with this problem in a moment or two, because it is a very important one. I am not denigrating any attempts to negotiate an agreement. What I am pointing out is that at the same time as the Soviet Union is prepared by hard bargaining to secure an agreement in certain spheres where it suits it, in other spheres it will continue to press and probe. Examples of this are there for us all to see. The Soviets do it in the air corridors. They do it in the land corridors. They are playing cat and mouse with the Americans in the Caribbean at this moment. They can at any time use the same tactics to menace or threaten traffic in the Indian Ocean. These are the facts. They cannot be wished away. The experience is

there not only in the past, but in recent months. Since I have been Prime Minister and since this Government have been in office we have had to handle the probing by the Soviet Union in these different spheres.
My conclusion, therefore, is that I do not believe that we are witnessing the preparation of a straightforward military coup on a continental scale. We may see further attempts, and I hope successful ones, to get agreement, and then further probing; but—I think that this bears relationship to many speeches which were made yesterday, some by my hon. Friends—I do not foresee a straightforward military attempt to conquer Europe. because I think that the risk of escalation to the ultimate horror of strategic nuclear bombardment is sufficiently high to deter any rational person from deliberately planning a campaign of that kind.
As I argued from the benches opposite in the last defence debate, what always exists is the doubt in the mind of anybody in power as to how the other will react. It is that doubt, even in the situation of approaching parity on nuclear weapons, which is, I believe, the safeguard against escalation to that stage.
No, Soviet policy is more subtle and more realistic. The Russians are conscious of the difficulties which Western democracies face in maintaining substantial military establishments in time of peace and in face of popular demand—natural demand—for improved standards of living, which can express itself freely, be it through the parliamentary system or through all the media of communication.
The Soviets are aware of the political stresses and strains and of the internal dissensions to which the North Atlantic Alliance is sometimes subject. They hear the talk of the possible withdrawal of United States forces from Europe. They may calculate that a stage could eventually be reached at which the sheer disparity of military strength would leave Western Europe with no convincing strategy and no confidence in its ability to sustain a confrontation if one occurred.
They might calculate that in those circumstances anything could happen. Political pressure which could be shrewdly applied and backed by the threat of greatly superior physical force might compel one of the more exposed


members of the Alliance to lapse into neutrality. Now the Soviets no doubt hope and plan that if this happens, if one of the members of the Alliance were to go neutral, then a process of disintegration could begin which would lead to the ultimate prize, an extension of the Soviet sphere of influence gradually into countries at present members of the Alliance and, if possible, to the Atlantic. So I would submit to the House that it is this kind of pressure in particular against which we have to safeguard and it is for this reason that we must ensure that the North Atlantic Alliance is a first charge on the growing prosperity of Western Europe.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvingrove): I am listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's analysis, which is a very interesting one, but would he not agree that it would be far better strategy from our point of view to inculcate into the Russians the same ideas as he believes have been inculcated into the West? Does he not realise that in Russia also there are people who want a better standard of living and that this is the way we should be tackling it, not in a military way?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that there are many in the Soviet Union who want to see an improved standard of living, and I would have thought there were lessons, certainly over the last ten years, that attitudes had begun to change. I would also have thought he could agree that we in this country have gone as far as anybody to encourage that, whatever Government has been in power, by every form of consular agreement, by trade arrangements, by trying to increase trade and by cultural exchanges on a very wide scale. I do not believe anybody could argue that the limitations have come from this country. Where there have been limitations it has been, as every Foreign Secretary knows, on the other side; but we will certainly try to encourage that.
I was asked about progress on East-West relations. In my view it is possible to make progress on East-West relations only if all the time we maintain and provide for our security. The Soviet Union does not negotiate with the weak. It looks instead for other means to attain its ends with those who have no strength

of their own. It is from a strong and healthy Western Alliance that we can seek to reduce East-West tensions in Europe. In this field progress undoubtedly has been made. We have welcomed the negotiations which the Federal German Republic has been patiently conducting with the Soviet Union, with Poland and with East Germany. In particular, we have noted the Federal German Chancellor's assurance that the treaties negotiated will not be ratified until the problems of Berlin have been satisfactorily resolved. This, to us, is of the greatest importance as it is to the other Powers concerned with Berlin.
The Federal German Chancellor himself has repeatedly stressed how the Federal Government's Ostpolitik is founded upon the Western Alliance and the unity of the West. We have taken an active part, with the three Western Allies who have been holding discussions with the Russians about the future of Berlin.
Once there is agreement on Berlin—and this is really the test case—and evidence of a genuine readiness by the Warsaw Pact countries to enter into talks which do not involve all give on one side and all take on the other, then we shall be ready to explore with our allies, and with the countries of Eastern Europe, the possibility of convening a conference or conferences on European security. In these circumstances, a conference could lead to more permanent improvement in East-West relations and new areas of possible agreement might emerge from such a conference or conferences.
Undoubtedly, one of the most important of these could be agreement on the reduction of the military forces which are now facing one another across the centre of Europe. Of course, nobody will underestimate the problems involved in doing this. They are very great. There is the imbalance which we discussed yesterday. There are the difficulties of satisfactory inspection; but I do not believe that anybody in this House would question that an agreement on mutual and balanced force reductions would be a very great advance indeed, if this could be achieved while at the same time we were able to maintain the security of the West. So we will work for this because we believe that it is a very great prize,


but, as 1 have indicated, I do not believe our military effort can or should be confined to Europe. Our interests go much wider. The trade and investment on which we depend and by which Britain lives can only flourish in stable conditions. That was why when in Opposition we made it plain that where Britain has traditionally borne a responsibility for defence we would be ready to help if the countries of the area wished us to do so. We shall continue support for C.E.N.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O., and we shall deploy forces in the Indian Ocean area and in Malaysia and Singapore.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, East, expressing the view which is stated in the Opposition Amendment, opposed our policy as far as Singapore and Malaysia are concerned because, he said, it is wrong to risk getting committed to operations of this kind which might involve us in additional forces or which we could not carry through single-handed. He went on to say that our forces in the area would be a deterrent—he granted us that—but he also said that they might become involved before a political decision could be reached. This seemed to me a strange argument in many respects, particularly in view of what his own Administration was planning to do and which it started to carry out.
First of all, this is an age of very rapid communications. British Governments have had long experience in handling forces right across the world before communications became as rapid as they are today. But under the policy of the late Administration it did not provide a deterrent on the spot. What that Administration was going to do was to send our reinforcements from within the general capability if circumstances demanded it. Presumably they intended doing this if trouble arose; so they were not going to have a deterrent to stop trouble arising. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor will you."] We will indeed, because as the right hon. Gentleman himself granted yesterday, the five-Power arangements between the five Commonwealth countries will provide the deterrent in the area and there can be general agreement about this. It is certainly the view of the other four countries, and, of course, it is possible to reinforce in the way the right hon. Gentle-

man described. But I have never understood the logic of having no deterrent there and saying when trouble arises massive forces will be sent out to deal with it. If the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the difficulty of political decision means anything at all, it means, presumably, that if the Government were prepared to have a long wrangle about whether or not they should send a force out, by that time the damage might very well have been done. This seemed to me an untenable argument by the right hon. Gentleman and the party opposite.
I would like to pay tribute to the professional competence with which the operation last year was carried out to show how quickly and successfully troops could be flow out from the United Kingdom and an area could be reinforced. But this only emphasises the importance of the policy we are pursuing to have the deterrent there first and then, if the deterrent fails, to be ready to deal further with the area. I feel it was a pity that the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not take the final, logical step of leaving a modest permanent force behind and so help to prevent the very contingencies they themselves feared would arise, which the right hon. Gentleman emphasised yesterday.

Mr. George Thomson: The difficulty in South-East Asia is that the real danger is the danger of racial troubles and if we have forces on the spot there is a real risk of being sucked into a second Northern Ireland or a second Vietnam. That is the objection. But if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is arguing that we must have forces on the spot to act as a deterrent, why did he announce yesterday that he did not intend to leave any deterrent force in the Persian Gulf?

The Prime Minister: I would not have said Vietnam is a racial conflict, but we are well aware of the difficulties in South-East Asia and in all the time that the British Forces have been there in the past they have not become involved in racial disturbances. There must be a very clear position about racial problems, as has already been announced. As compared with the dangers which threaten that area from the outside, I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the main danger is racial disturbances. I do not accept that as being


the main danger to the stability of the area.

Mr. George Thomson: Then will the Prime Minister say what is the main danger? Who is the enemy that British forces are supposed to deter in Singapore and Malaysia?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, with his Ministerial experience, would be aware of the threats to Malaysia from the forces outside in Southern Thailand and north of the Malaysian border. These are well known to anyone who has studied the problems. If the right hon. Gentleman had been through the area he could have discussed the problems with the people on the spot.
Our Commonwealth partners in South-East Asia have been hard-headed about these matters, and they are developing their own defence capability. Malaysia and Singapore are both showing their determination to develop increasing self-reliance on their own forces, and they have received support from Australia and New Zealand.
It is now quite clear to the Opposition, I hope, that we shall not have anything like the enormous complex of facilities which Britain had there in the past. We are, as I constantly reiterated in Opposition, one part of a five-Power force and arrangement. Our requirements will be the minimum compatible with efficiency, and we shall share support and logistic arrangements with Australia and New Zealand. This is the kind of Commonwealth co-operation in defence which I believe to be valuable, and to be in tune with what is required in that area, but which apparently hon. Members opposite had not considered or were not prepared to support.
The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that in carrying out this rôle the Services felt that they were being overstretched and unsupported. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I found when I visited the forces in Singapore during the recent Commonwealth Conference, they do not have that feeling in the least. The Services welcome the fact that they will continue there as a presence for a deliberate purpose. What is more, the fact that there are Her Majesty's Forces outside Europe gives an added interest to recruiting to young

people in this country. I was very interested in what the right hon. Gentleman said about the ways of increasing interest in the forces, but there is no doubt that the thought of a life confined to commuting between Aldershot and Western Europe is not one which has the interest of service in other parts right across the world.
Each time I have visited Singapore and Malaysia I have been impressed by the enormous opportunities which are open there to British enterprise, whether commercial, financial or cultural. As development goes ahead in those countries, and in Indonesia in particular, so the opportunities for Britain will become greater. But there has been no doubt—and this is connected with our defence policy in South-East Asia—that we have suffered a handicap there in the past few years. I do not believe that the last Government ever realised the extent to which they created that handicap by their sudden announcement of complete withdrawal. There is no doubt that it gave the impression that we were no longer concerned, not only with military matters but with trade, investment and commerce in the area.
Another consequence of the policy we have followed is that now they recognise that we have a continuing interest there, though our presence is modest, and that we shall continue an interest in trade and investment. Anyone visiting Malaysia and Singapore today will see how that process is already under way.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: The Prime Minister mentions trade. Is not Japan making the greatest inroad in economic affairs in Malaysia? How many troops has Japan got there to safeguard those economic interests?

The Prime Minister: That is an argument I have constantly heard before. The hon. Gentleman is experienced in military matters and has very often stood with distinction for his own beliefs in the House. How is it that the Japanese can trade in Malaysia and Singapore? It is only because there is stability there as a result of a British presence. How much trade would the Japanese have in that area if there were instability, insurrection and conflict? None at all. If it is a fact that with stability in the area the Japanese are making inroads into British trade, the


answer lies with British industrialists and traders to hold their own markets. The stability is there, and it is up to us to seize the opportunity in the same way as the Japanese or Germans do.
I want now to speak about the other matter which was raised by the hon. Gentleman a moment ago, namely, the position in the Gulf. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary announced yesterday our proposals which have been put to the countries in the Gulf for dealing with the matter. I have been in the area a number of times in the past 10 years. I believe that the last Government's decision for total withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances, was a most damaging mistake, and I said so at the time. It upset the balance of power in the area. It created confusion and uncertainty, and the after-effects are still evident.
The disputes in the area, only one of which has been resolved—that of Bahrein—were not problems under either Government until the last Administration's announcement that they would withdraw completely. But those matters, having come into the public domain, now exist as disputes. We are glad that the dispute between Iran and Bahrein has been resolved. The other disputes still exist, and look like being problems for some time.
We criticised the then Government's decision when we were in Opposition and pledged to consult our friends in the area to see what form a continuing British interest in their stability should take. When I toured the Gulf countries and other countries concerned with policy in that area at Easter, 1969, I told them that when we came to power we would arrange to discuss with them the form in which we could best help them maintain their stability. That is precisely what we have done. The nature of the continuing interest we propose after discussions with them was announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary yesterday.
The right hon. Member for Dundee, East criticised us yesterday for taking eight months to consult the countries in the Gulf and work out our proposals with them. Fifteen countries were involved in the consultations. To criticise the Government for taking eight

months to consult them shows either how little experience the right hon. Gentleman has of such matters or the paucity of the argument he can raise against what the Government have been doing.
There is one other important aspect of the matter. As we constantly made clear in Opposition, when we supported the Government's approach, we strongly support the project for a union between certain of the Gulf States. The then Government supported it, but when 1 went around the Gulf I found that they were supporting it in theory but doing absolutely nothing to help bring it about in practice. This was not through misadventure, that was a deliberate policy to leave the Gulf States to form their union if they could in their own way. I constantly felt that the problems of forming any sort of union or federation are quite difficult enough for any group of countries, let alone those which have had no experience of this kind. Therefore, help should have been given by the Government of the day. The Labour Government spent all their time preparing for the military withdrawal and providing the Rulers with an explanation of why this was taking place, but they gave them no help in forming the union or making the sort of proposals to them which we have now been able to make.
In those circumstances, it is not surprising that the union has not made greater headway than it has, and that in some ways the project has languished. We are determined to do all we can to held the project forward. Of course, we recognise that it cannot be imposed on the Rulers. They must reach their decisions freely, taking into account what seems to them to be in their best own interests. But there is a rôle here for British diplomacy. We consider that we still have a responsibility in this matter. and it is one that we shall not shirk.

Mr. George Thomson: I apologise for interrupting again, but the right hon. Gentleman is not being fair and accurate in saying that we refused to give help for the formation of this union. Over a number of years, we gave maximum support and encouragement for the formation of the union. I myself, as a Minister of the Crown, went out to the Gulf with an offer of £2 million to the Emirates to help


them co-operate together in various forms of development work that would help them to establish a viable federation.

The Prime Minister: No assistance was given to them in the actual procedure of forming the union and no proposals were made to them of the kind which we announced yesterday to help them with their own defence. We have committed ourselves to this offer.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: rose—

The Prime Minister: I cannot give way again. I have already given way many times. We intend to give the Emirates every support that we can in forming a union. We have shown them that we will help with continuing training and a presence as far as that is acceptable to them. We believe that the best hope for stability in the area is a union of the kind now being discussed, helped and encouraged by continuing British efforts on the lines described yesterday.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) yesterday asked a question which was not clearly answered at the time and which I think should be answered now. In essence it was this: if the union of Emirates is not formed and the other things hoped for in yesterday's statement do not occur, will the British withdrawal none the less occur at the end of 1971, or is the British withdrawal contingent on progress with the union? It was a straight question and really was not answered. I think that we should know the answer.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary answered that question clearly. Perhaps 1 might explain to the former Foreign Secretary by saying that this is a proposal to the Rulers and to those countries interested in a union as to what we can do to help them form a union. This is a matter for discussion with them. If necessary, my right hon. Friend himself or another of my right hon. Friends can visit the area in order to carry it further. But until we know what the decision is we are not, as my right hon. Friend said quite clearly, going to answer hypothetical questions as to what will happen. I would have thought that a former Foreign

Secretary would have accepted that this is the right way to carry on diplomacy in as complicated and difficult a situation as this.
I want now to turn to the broader issue, which is the question of United Nations peace-keeping forces. We have endeavoured to support the United Nations in this, but for too long a United Nations force has been needed in Cyprus. We wish to see a settlement there and an end to the need for a peace-keeping operation. A more determined effort is now required to resolve the differences which took the force there seven years ago, for one reason, namely, that there are other possibilities of peace-keeping forces being required in other parts of the world. I do not believe that we shall be able to persuade other countries constantly to support the United Nations in peace-keeping endeavours if they find that a peace-keeping force is not a means to resolve a situation and to give time for diplomacy to work, but is merely a permanent commitment which seems to be unending. This is our view about the force in Cyprus, but in the meantime we are maintaining our contingent there.
In the four-Power talks in New York, we have been discussing ways in which the international community could help to guarantee and sustain a political settlement between the parties to the Arab-Israel dispute. This is one of the possibilities I have just mentioned. If there is progress towards such a settlement, we shall be prepared to ctonsider participating in a United Nations peacekeeping operation in that area, provided, of course, that there is agreement by all the parties concerned.
We were asked yesterday about disarmament. At Geneva, we will continue to work for agreement on measures of arms control and disarmament. It is true that progress has been slow, but we were encouraged by the non-proliferation treaty entering into force last year, and only a few weeks ago there was the signature of the Seabed Arms Control Treaty. Action has been taken already to keep outer space free of nuclear weapons, and this most recent measure will ban weapons of mass destruction from the seabed. All this is only the beginning, and in this I agree with the right hon. Member for Dundee, East.


There is still no agreement on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and we have yet to agree on measures to deal more effectively with the weapons of biological and chemical warfare. The S.A.L.T. talks are going on, of which we are kept fully informed and to which we make our contributions of thought and ideas. But the rule by which we have to judge all these things is the extent to which they provide additional security for the area concerned. For this reason, I think that the negotiation of new agreements will always be painstaking and slow. But we shall persist in our efforts.
Finally, I wish to say something about the Armed Services. They have been through a period of intense change which has been discussed in detail on the Service Estimates. To some extent, it has been right and inevitable because, in a period of rapidly changing technologies, it would have been a sign of danger if our Armed Services had attempted to remain static. Changes of structure have been necessary as well as changes of equipment. They have been accepted as necessary by those concerned with ensuring that we have a modern and effective system of defence.
But I know that there has also been a widespread feeling in the Services that some changes have not been necessary and could have been avoided by greater foresight, and that sometimes the Services have not been fairly treated. Sometimes they have felt that their efficiency and well-being have been placed at the mercy of domestic considerations—sometimes political—from which they should have been protected.
Certainly it is the Government's firm intention that the Services should now benefit from a period during which they can have a reasonable assurance about the policies which they will be asked to pursue and the resources which will be available to them. The White Paper shows the real character and purpose of the work which our Services do today, and tribute has many times been paid to the fairness and persistence with which the Army has carried out an almost impossible task in Northern Ireland. We ought to remind ourselves perhaps of what the purpose of that task has been. The simplest way of doing this is to ask

ourselves how much bloodshed and how much destruction would have taken place by now in Northern Ireland had it not been for the presence of British troops.
Many people in Northern Ireland will, I think, gladly say, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, that they owe the fact that they and their families are alive today and going about their business to the presence of the British Forces in Northern Ireland and the way in which they have carried out their task.
The White Paper also emphasises what has often been mentioned, the three major relief operations which the Services have conducted in the last few months—in Jordan in September; in East Pakistan in November, and in Malaysia in January. On each occasion, the Services reacted with immense speed and efficiency, and during my visits to Pakistan and to Malaysia on the way to the Commonwealth Conference, as well as at the Conference itself, I heard from the Heads of Government of the countries concerned, and from many others, warm thanks and much praise for the work of the British forces in these operations. I also talked to British Servicemen who had taken part in them.
These achievements have been vividly reported, but all too often they fade from memory very quickly. But allowing for the immense services which the Armed Forces provide in this respect, it is not of course their primary task. Their primary task is to maintain the security of this country and the stability of the area in which they are serving.
There is an important part for Parliament and the Government to play in assuring the Services that we recognise what they are doing and are proud of what they are achieving. To the young men of this country the Services undoubtedly offer a career which is responsible, rewarding and among the most honourable and worth while anyone can undertake. What I want to emphasise is that we as a Government, and I believe the whole House, recognise our Armed Forces for what they are, the foundation of the security of this nation.
The Opposition Amendment suggests that our Forces are over-stretched and that we are neglecting our rôle in Europe. On the contrary, full and proper use is


now, once again, being made of the potential of our Armed Forces and the defence facilities we have at our disposal. I know that the Services welcome our policies and that they are an encouragement to them.
In Europe we are increasing our contribution and, from a stronger alliance which we hope to build, we want to see progress and we shall work for progress in East-West relations. Elsewhere we are reversing policy decisions which we believe were taken hastily, mistakenly and which I have often felt Her Majesty's Opposition would like to reverse after a period of time and upon reflection, after seeing what were the consequences of those policies.
Some of these policies have not been reversed because they had changed the situation which could not be restored to what it was. But we are reversing other policies. We have done so in the Far East according to what our friends there want. We are changing policies in the Gulf in the way in which our friends there believe can best help them to maintain stability.
What this country has once again got is a realistic and responsible defence policy.

4.51 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: The House has listened to a speech from the Prime Minister which would have us forget those past debates in which, from these benches, the then Opposition launched some of the most virulent attacks on the honour and patriotism of those of us who were either in Government or on the Government benches. The Prime Minister, because it is in his interests to do so, wishes to forget all that was said over that six-year period, but today he will not be allowed to forget that.
He has cynically broken pledge after pledge in the defence area and if there were any reason for us to doubt this, the assembled mass of his own backbenchers, who listened with ever-increasing gloom as he wriggled on the issue of the Gulf, is certainly confirmation of our beliefs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] He did not mention that there was an Amendment in the names of many of his hon. Friends strongly criticising the whole basis of his Gulf policy.
One of the most precious rights of this House of Commons is the right to exercise democratic political and financial control over the defence affairs of this country. Our House of Commons throughout its history has fought zealously to retain and preserve this right. It is therefore a lamentable situation when the Secretary of State for Defence sits in another place and cannot even come to listen to this debate for more than ten minutes at a time.
The Prime Minister dismisses that. The noble Lord is not answerable to this House of Commons. He holds his high office without any democratic mandate from a constituency, and the Prime Minister should explain this situation. It makes a mockery of the general concept of democratic, political control of the military. Previous Tory Administrations have had the Defence Secretary and also the Foreign Secretary in another place. We are beginning to wonder whether the Chancellor will not find refuge in another place, too, in order to avoid the embarrassment of accepting the scrutiny and real criticism that occurs in this House.
To give him credit, the Secretary of State took office with a lot of good will from both sides of the House but he will have to do a great deal better than he has so far done in the defence debate. The tone of that speech in another place was reminiscent of attitudes that many of us hoped had long since left us in the 1950s, let alone the 1960s. The vocabulary of sensible politicians should no longer include the sort of words used by the Secretary of State. He said that he did not wish to rattle sabres but anyone reading his speech must feel that his emphasis on the offensive military threat posed by the Russians could at least have been put in perspective if he had discussed the whole question of détente, the possibility of negotiation and of mutual force reductions in Europe.
The Prime Minister made much of the statement that we should not resent the facts about Russian forces and Warsaw Pact forces being presented to the House. I agree with that. What we do resent is that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have been less than fair to the House in the comparison of those forces. They were not facts. The full details were


not given, and they should be given. The Minister of State talked of N.A.T.O. force levels in the central region and said that there were more than 60 Warsaw Pact divisions confronting 23 divisions or their equivalent on the N.A.T.O. side.
It is this sort of talk that leads leader writers in newspapers to talk of a 3-1 ratio. Everyone knows that N.A.T.O. divisions are much larger than Warsaw Pact divisions. It has been said in a number of places, for instance by the former Under-Secretary in the United States Defence Department, that the typical British division is almost twice the size of a Warsaw Pact division and that a U.S. division is nearly three times the size of a Warsaw Pact division. On 2nd February, 1968, the then Secretary of State for Defence, McNamara said in his major statement:
In all regions except Norway, the N.A.T.O. Pact forces are about equal in manpower. N.A.T.O. has about 900,000 troops deployed in all regions in continental Europe compared to 960,000 troops for the Warsaw Pact.
He went on to say that manpower comparisons alone are not conclusive measures of military strength, with which I agree. There is the problem of "teeth to tail ratio" being more in favour of Warsaw Pact countries. It does, however, give a reasonable, relative measure by which to compare force capabilities. In the case of the air forces, mentioned by the Secretary of State, McNamara said at that time:
… our relative capability is far greater than a simple comparison of numbers would indicate. By almost every measure—range, payload, ordnance effectiveness, loiter time, crew training—N.A.T.O. (especially U.S.) air forces are better than the Pact's for non-nuclear war…

Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman might perhaps turn to the military balance figures published by the Institute of Strategic Studies. He will see there that the combat and direct support troops available to N.A.T.O amount to 580,000 and to the Warsaw Pact countries 900,000 in the northern and central fronts. The report then adds that the Soviet forces could be doubled in four weeks, something which does not apply to N.A.T.O.

Dr. Owen: The question of reserves is one upon which McNamara has laid

stress. The hon. Gentleman has quoted figures with which I am familiar. I have looked at the military balance quoted by him of N.A.T.O. versus the Warsaw Pact. In such a comparison it is necessary to include the southern flank as well as the northern and central flanks. On that comparison, in 1970–71 N.A.T.O. forces were shown to be 1,105,000, as against Warsaw Pact forces of 1,270,000. If we include France, which is reasonable, there is an additional 40,000 troops. Of course the number is difficult to compare and we on this side have always laid great stress on strengthening our force levels in Europe.
I would like to mention maritime forces to which the Prime Minister particularly seemed to attach great force. To hear the Secretary of State and his Ministerial colleagues one would think that the Russians had a superiority in this area. In the most recent study an attempt was made to improve on the ordinary comparisons of tonnage and to use a measure of standardised cost which consequently took account of such factors as the greater degree of sophistication in smaller vessels, the higher cost per ton of nuclear-powered submarines, the high proportion of old vessels in the U.S. Fleet and so on.
The principle behind the measurement system was expressed in this way:
As a general rule it seems reasonable to assume that increased expenditure does buy an increase in performance or capability which, in a rough and ready way, has some relationship to the increase in the money spent.
It was on this system of measurement that the N.A.T.O. fleet came out as over twice as large as the Warsaw Pact fleet. If it had been possible to include the value of the bases in the comparison, which would have been logical, the superiority would have been greater, and greater still if planes on aircraft carriers had been included. The facts have not been fairly presented to the House.
The Government claim, and the Prime Minister made great play of the figures, to have strengthened N.A.T.O. by their recent changes. This, as I well know, only invokes laughter in the Pentagon and in Washington. We all welcome the European Defence Improvement Programme and the Government's financial contributions, but, as I intend to show, their forces contribution to N.A.T.O. has been rather less than it was when we left office.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Antony Lambton): Before the hon. Member leaves the subject of comparisons, will he please compare the armoured strength of the Warsaw Pact and the West?

Dr. Owen: There again one has to take into account not just tank numbers but tank effectiveness, which it is difficult to do. Many people think that, for instance, the Chieftain tank is far more proficient than many of the tanks it faces. I am not saying that across the whole range one cannot pick out areas where there is superiority. I am not trying to hide the facts.
I should like to discuss this so-called increased N.A.T.O. contribution, and the teeth which the Prime Minister spent a great deal of his time talking about. Let us examine the teeth. The Government have made much of the fact that they are putting six surface ships and a submarine out into the Far East, and this may I understand be on a continuous deployment basis. These are very different proposals from those we put, which were for a continuing presence on an alternating basis. This in no way is offset by the running on of H.M.S. "Ark Royal", which at best I assume will be available on average for less than two-thirds of the year and whose Phantom aircraft were already assigned to N.A.T.O. under the previous Government's proposals.
Let us look at the Army. The Government are putting one battalion group into the Far East, plus an air platoon and one artillery battery. This is certainly not offset by expanding T.A.V.R. to increase the reserve contribution to N.A.T.O.
Let us look at the Royal Air Force. The Nimrod and Whirlwind helicopters going to the Far East will be sorely missed by N.A.T.O.—particularly the Nimrods—and although the change in ratio of the Jaguar aircraft going into close support in N.A.T.O. will help, there is no increase in numbers, and the Phantom aircraft numbers will be less. Some being afloat on H.M.S. "Ark Royal" and not available should they be required in the event of an emergency in the central area. As one would expect with no extra money and with increased commitments, the N.A.T.O. contribution will be actually smaller, and it is humbug for the Government to try to pretend otherwise.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Lambton) for

interrupting me, because it gives me an opportunity to quote some of his words of 1961 from a pamphlet entitled "Inadequacy: The State of our Conventional Forces"—I hope that I am not doing him an injustice in ascribing the authorship to him. At that time—and we believe that the situation could build up again—which is one of our fundamental criticisms of the Government—the then Tory Government had been slowly decreasing the force levels committed to Europe. From 1957, force levels of 77,000 were cut by 1961 to 45,000, and many of the units were below establishment, as he himself wrote. The hon. Member questioned Britain's over-commitment throughout the world and said:
Indeed …the more one looks at the question, the more one comes up against the fact that the Government…
—his Government—
…has to face a very unpopular decision or risk continuing a policy which has very great dangers, both to the country and to the maintenance of those overseas bases which we yet retain. In other words, that we must have some form of conscription or risk the inescapable logic of the Labour Party's contention that we must cut our commitments.
It is a tribute to the Labour Government that they increased the contribution to the Rhine Army and army units assigned to N.A.T.O. by 3,400 from 1964, and increased the strength of B.A.O.R. infantry battalions by up to 6 per cent. and, when we were able to come out from east of Suez completely we would have been able to make a more significant contribution.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who must privately be as annoyed as we are that the Secretary of State is not here to answer our questions, might care to think about this vocal gem which the Secretary of State produced recently in another place. He was forced to try to rebut criticisms of some of his policies, and in one particular field which has been so prevalent in recent months, the noble Lord said:
My Lords, some people have dismissed our policy as a policy of general exhortations and pious hopes. But it is not; it is a policy of close attention to detail."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 24th February, 1971; Vol. 315, c. 1073.]
So, after those halcyon years of Opposition when irresponsible pledge after irresponsible pledge was issued by the spokesmen appointed by the present Prime Minister, many of whom hold high


office in his Government, all we are offered is a policy of close attention to detail.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): The hon. Gentleman knows that he is taking those words completely out of context. The words "exhortations and pious hopes" were referring to an article which related to recruiting. Recruiting in 1968–69 amounted to 28,000. This year there will be 39,000. Is that really "pious hope and exhortation?"

Dr. Owen: I said "In one particular field"—

Lord Balniel: It is a total distortion.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Dr. Owen: I said,
in one particular field that has been so prevalent in recent months".
Does the Minister deny that one of the major sources of criticism from the Press and informed military correspondents has been about recruiting? I did not say I was speaking about his whole policies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ridiculous."] It is perfectly fair. So the Secretary of State reserves his general exhortations for his right hon. and hon. Friends who are becoming increasingly restless as broken pledge after broken pledge is tossed into the wastepaper basket.
I will let the Prime Minister know about these broken pledges. He seems to have thought that he could make an anodyne speech to the House and we should forget everything that had been said prior to his gracing us with his presence. Perhaps it was too embarrassing for the Government to have as a defence spokesman someone who had been making these speeches. So we have the Secretary of State, no politician, making statements in another place where we cannot even listen to them.
For instance, we hear no more about prolonging the carrier life of H.M.S. "Eagle" and H.M.S. "Hermes". Nowhere do the Conservative Government say they will prolong the life of existing carriers. We hear no more about the folly of accepting fixed defence budgets for the years ahead—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ark Royal."] It is ridiculous to hold

on to one aircraft carrier which would be available for such a short period of time.

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman, in his one brief moment of glory, was responsible for the Navy. During that period of time £30 million was spent on H.M.S. "Ark Royal". It was then decided to scrap it. Why?

Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman should try to get his facts right. First, the decision to retain H.M.S. "Ark Royal" was made before I joined the Government. Secondly, he should try to envisage that the unanimous advice which we were tendered at the time by the Service chiefs—

Lord Balniel: Who was responsible for the policy? The Service chiefs?

Dr. Owen: Nobody is blaming the Service chiefs. I am saying that those hon. Members on the Opposition benches spent all their time saying that the Government should protect Service lives. So they should. So they should take notice of any threat to Service lives. There was the question of covering the withdrawal from east of Suez. It was felt, rightly, or wrongly, that there might have been circumstances in which that withdrawal could have been dangerous. It was believed at that time, and upheld by the Secretary of State, that to protect Service lives it was right to provide aircraft cover, not just the cover from H.M.S. "Eagle" and H.M.S. "Hermes" but sophisticated aircraft cover from phantom aircraft. Should we have ignored that advice? Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have a reasonable case if there were a role for "Ark Royal" for only two or three years, but to commit themselves to a whole new refit for the "Ark Royal" in 1974–75 when they have insufficient service manpower and when they know that in that period there will have to be a substantial refit—

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kirk): The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. There will be two short refit periods of the "Ark Royal", but for nowhere near as long as he has suggested.

Dr. Owen: We shall be interested to know the time scale and the cost. But it was always thought to be an interim


refit every two years for an aircraft carrier, with a large refit every four or five years. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are happy to run an aircraft carrier as complex as that until the end of the 1970s, they will have to spend more money on refits than they at present envisage.
Let us deal with defence expenditure, which is a matter very close to the hearts of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The present Home Secretary said in the defence debate of 1967:
…our principle would be that any money needed to maintain the security of this country must be a prior charge on the Budget".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1967, Vol.751, c. 1098.]
In the same debate the then Opposition defence spokesman pointed to
…the stupidity of picking on a figure for defence expenditure four years ahead as the Government did in 1964.
The present Home Secretary said again on 25th July, 1968:
We believe that the fundamental error of the Government has been to base their defence planning on a fixed financial ceiling …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1968; Vol.769, c. 1024.]
The present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said
We do not pretend to think that we can have adequate defence on the cheap. We are prepared to pay the price to secure our interests and fulfil our commitments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol.779, c. 249.]
Both were then in Opposition. What is the reality? The Secretary of State in giving a lecture in October last year talked of
'Increasing complexity'—of equipment—'growing cost within a rigidly controlled defence budget, more and more sophistication and an escalation of prices. And all this at a time when the Government are trying to reduce public expediture and take less money from the pockets of the people of this country '.
The final culmination came in Cmnd. 4578, on page 16
The figures for the defence budget were explained in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1970 (Cmnd. 4521). This settled firmly the expenditure on the defence programme over the next four financial years.
One more cynical pledge which has been completely broken. We hear no more about the pledge to restore the Hunter-Killer submarine build rate which was given in 1970. We are not ferreting back into 1964 or even 1965.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Member is going back to 1961.

Dr. Owen: We went back to 1961 for the deliberate reason that we are looking at commitments. This is one of our most serious objections to the policy of this Government. Those who held responsibility for defence forces in this country deeply resented the attack on our patriotism which was launched upon us by the then Opposition defence spokesman. We are entitled to ask what has happened to all their pledges to repair breaches which allegedly had been torn in the defences of this country. The pledge to rebuild the honour of our country which has been cast down. It is a sick joke. There was no breach and there was no casting down of honour.
The present Government inherited from us the best paid, best trained, and best equipped defence forces in Europe and in many areas forces which were superior to the United States forces in quality. The present Government have done nothing about these pledges. They do not need to be fulfilled and they know it. They had committed themselves to restore the force levels that we reduced in the Far East and planned to reduce. All they have done is to come up with this miserable package which is dangerous in form and marginal in content.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to be fair. He has called this a miserable farce. May I recall to the hon. Gentleman the words of the Leader of the Opposition in a speech in the United States. He said:
It is a hundred times easier for Britain to remain there"—
east of Suez—
even with a token force than for us to seek to enter when trouble occurs".
Does the hon. Gentleman rebut that or does he accept it?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that devaluation meant a change of policy. Nobody has tried to deny what the Labour Government had to do—

Mr. Churchill: They welshed.

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman, when he has been in the House a little longer,


will hear a lot more about pledges which have been broken by his right hon. Friends. As a Welshman, may I say that I resent the use of that word. The facts are that they have had the opportunity.
In the Gulf they are accepting our run down timetable almost in its entirety. There is not a person in the Ministry of Defence who does not openly admit that the present Government have taken over all the policies of retrenchment, withdrawal and reduction which they so attacked when they were in Opposition.
Realism came to British defence and foreign policy over the decisions following devaluation. For the last two and a half years of the Labour Government these policies were pursued courageously against virulent and, as we now see it, totally synthetic opposition.
What do we now have in this White Paper? A rather nauseatingly-written political introduction headed "Policy". This is intended as a general exhortation to try to pretend to their own back benchers that they are to spend more money, expand force manpower and accept new commitments. They are not doing anything of the sort.
This type of posturing—the policy which has been built up by the Tory Party in this country as some kind of principle—should be recognised for what it is: a mixture of deceit and humbug. However, the serious objection to the policy is that it is a prescription for overstretch. It does not honestly face the real facts that the Cabinet have already decided that there will not be any substantial increase in financial resources for defence over the next five years. It does not honestly face the fact that the voluntary manpower pool is not sufficient to give credible support in terms of increasing force levels to support open-ended commitments in the Far East. Behind this policy statement there are attitudes which could, if unchecked now, eventually lead to this country once again returning to the situation in 1963.

Mr. Churchill: It was surely the hon. Gentleman's own Administration which had an open-ended commitment in the Far East under the Anglo-Malaysian defence agreement and was providing no deterrent capability on the spot and was

relying merely on reinforcement from this country.

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman, of all people, should be aware of the fact that one of his own relatives came to this House and negotiated the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement. This was inherited by us. The hon. Gentleman must do his homework.

Mr. Churchill: rose—

Dr. Owen: I am not giving way again to the hon. Gentleman. I am saying that these policies, if unchecked, could eventually lead to the state in which this country found itself in 1963 when we inherited from the Tory Government in 1964 a serious state of affairs. We inherited a strategy which was still largely based on massive nuclear retaliation. We inherited forces extending all round the world, overstretched, ill-equipped. Even spending just under 7 per cent. of the gross national product on defence as the Tory Government then did, we could not meet all the financial requirements dictated by these commitments.
So we are left with the Secretary of State boasting in another place that this year's White Paper is 30 pages shorter and 7½p less than the 1970 White Paper—altogether, he claims, a good example of Conservative cost-effectiveness. What drivel. This House wants more information, not less about defence policy and wants it in this House—not in a totally undemocratic assembly, composed of a cross between hereditary peers and Prime Ministerial appointees.
The White Paper says very little about the all-important strategic arms limitation talks which are now taking place. I understand the problems involved. In my view, it has been a major omission from recent defence debates how little serious discussion Parliament gives to this whole area of nuclear disarmament. It is no good us leaving it entirely to the two super powers to argue about the major issues. It is particularly important for Britain, which is one of the few countries that possesses enough nuclear know-how to argue with its ally, the United States, that our voice should be heard, and that that voice should not always be confined behind closed doors. I realise the problems of defence Ministers. The fact is that in the past in regard to the S.A.L.T.


real mistakes have been made. The real tragedy is the way in which first the Johnson Administration, then the Nixon Administration prevaricated over proposing a M.I.R.V. testing moratorium. This was the one really effective immediate initiative open to the United States Administration in a serious attempt to halt the arms race.
By the time that the S.A.L.T. actually began, the United States had almost completed its M.I.R.V. testing programme, and so the one opportunity for taking a major step to halt the quantum leap that M.I.R.V. deployment involves was lost. It is now unlikely that the Russians will agree to an immediate ban on M.I.R.V. testing, knowing, as they do, that the Americans could easily circumvent such a ban by fitting M.I.R.V.s without further testing and with a fair measure of confidence in their existing technology. History will show the reluctance to push a M.I.R.V. moratorium to have been a massive error of judgment.
Admittedly, all weapon moratoriums have their dangers, but, even with the Russians' persistent refusal, to consider on-site testing, there were reasonable grounds for believing that modern detection devices would have been able to pick up the testing of M.I.R.V., and even, if necessary, banning the testing of M.I.R.V.s and decoy testing. It is because of the imbalance of M.I.R.V. technology, with the United States having a clear lead, that initially S.A.L.T. is likely to prove disappointing. However, the long-term prospects for talks continuing over the next four or five years could involve major changes in current nuclear policy. At this stage, the Russians will probably be unwilling to accept a freeze on the existing level of missiles and aircraft unless this is accompanied by a total M.I.R.V. ban or by including M.I.R.V.s in the total number of missiles counted. They know that they have fewer missiles than the United States and that the United States is possibly developing a new generation of bombers. They also know that they are behind in applying M.I.R.V. technology, and so a freeze would be likely to ensure a widening of the missile gap for some years to come.
The other issue for the S.A.L.T.—and it is important in terms of the massive drain on financial resources in the two

countries—is whether there can be any agreement on reducing or banning A.B.M. deployment. The Soviet Union already has deployed round Moscow the Golosh system, and the United States has become committed to putting the safeguard system round their Minuteman sites and probably round Washington. This problem of A.B.M. deployment must be taken seriously, and when the Prime Minister says that he is being kept informed about the S.A.L.T. and is taking an active interest in them, I hope that he is putting in a specific British input to the United States.
The United States recently has become very concerned about the Russian SS9 missiles which have three warheads and which, though not at present independently controlled, are able to land in a pattern which could effectively knock out a Minuteman site, even when hardened by the addition of extensive reinforced concrete round the launching base. The facts are well known in the United States, but they are rarely discussed here. The main American concern is that this could provide the Russians with a first-strike weapon system and it was this concern which formed the major argument for deploying an A.B.M. system.
It seems extraordinary that Congress could decide actually to slow down the conversion rate of Polaris submarines to be fitted with Poseidon, which is a system with a proven second-strike capability, and at the same time accept, after tremendous opposition in the United States, the case for an A.B.M. system which would at best, if proved technically successful, confer a limited second-strike capability on the vulnerable Minuteman sites. It would, however, be achieved at a tremendous financial cost. Let us hope that a total ban on A.B.M. deployment is being actively discussed and pushed by Her Majesty's Government.
It is clear, therefore, that the 1970s will present a completely new dimension of increase in nuclear weapons if the S.A.L.T. fail, and it is against this background that we in this country must discuss the comparatively insignificant strategic forces of Britain and France. It is particularly gratifying to hear that the present Government have not made any attempt to link entry into the


Common Market with discussions with the French on nuclear matters. The complete absence of any move by this Government or the French is to be welcomed. Many of us on this side of the House, though strongly committed Europeans—and 1 make no secret of my views on the subject—and hoping that the Common Market talks are successful, would strongly condemn any linking of nuclear weapons with the Common Market negotiations. At one time, it seemed as though the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in his Godkin lecture, was proposing such a link. It is good to know that the E.E.C. negotiations are not straying into the possibility of committing this error. It is a quite separate problem and should be discussed in the environment of the N.A.T.O. Alliance.
Europe has a real interest in the outcome of the S.A.L.T., especially as they relate to the large number of existing Soviet medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles which are targeted on Europe. We in this country have made it clear to the United States that we would be deeply concerned if the Americans were to propose any unilateral reduction in the 7,000 nuclear weapons at present in Europe. These weapons are considered to be now an indispensable element in N.A.T.O.'s deterrent against attack, and any future reduction, which hon. Members on this side of the House will welcome, would have to be accompanied by equivalent reductions of the Soviet medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles.
A.B.M. deployment is also of concern to the British and the French because the effectiveness of their existing strategic forces could be weakened by widespread A.B.M. deployment. My message to the Government is that this is an area of vital interest to Europe and to this country. I hope that they will not feel that they must necessarily endorse American initiatives because of some feeling of nuclear inferiority. There is no need for pessimism. The S.A.L.T. could still represent a major break-through in halting the arms race.
The greatest contribution that we could make to intelligent discussion of these crucial issues is to challenge technically,

as an understanding but nevertheless independent critic, the assumption on which American policies are based within the Alliance.
I do not wish to embark on too long a discussion of maritime strategy, for much of the ground will have to be covered tomorrow when we come to debate the Government's deplorable decision to sell arms to South Africa. However, one cannot look at the White Paper without criticising the whole concept of the supposed military threat of Russian naval forces in the Indian Ocean.
No one who has served in the Ministry of Defence will deny that this Ministry is not usually short of military threats. In fact, they abound in every corner. One can barely hold a meeting without being confronted by some new threat. The job of Ministers is usually to inject a degree of realism into the assessment of potential military threats. I find it all the more inexplicable and extraordinary, therefore, that this Government should have found it necessary to find a military threat all on their own. It is a very remarkable achievement. For the last four years, the Ministry of Defence has quite rightly watched the growth of the Russian naval presence in the Indian Ocean very carefully. Never at any time was the threat judged to be anything other than primarily political; yet, suddenly, having taken office on the afternoon of 19th June, by Monday. 22nd June, the Foreign Secretary decided to change the assessment of the political threat in the Indian Ocean to a major military threat. The topic turned into a discussion of protecting our sea lanes and returning to concepts of future naval war that were slowly being abandoned in the 1950s, let alone the 1960s.
Not unnaturally, the Ministry of Defence is already beginning to revise its previous judgments. It would hardly be in the nature of the Ministry to turn down a threat offered to it on a plate by no less a person than its own Prime Minister. The difficulty of obtaining a sensible dialogue on the possibility of limiting war at sea is that each side of the argument tends to overstate dramatically its case. For example, it is inconceivable that the super Powers will ever again face the same type of prolonged maritime warfare, going on over many years, as they did in the last two world wars. However,


it is a realistic planning assumption that an initial maritime incident could be contained using conventional weapons over many more days than are likely to be possible with an initial land-based incident. At sea, with no rigid boundaries, the probability is of a slower escalation with more time for second thoughts, and, in consequence, a higher nuclear threshold.
To that extent, limited war at sea is credible. The proponents of extended war at sea, however, talk of the need for the worldwide protection of sea lanes and constantly reiterate import figures and merchant ship numbers to show the vulnerability of various nations to interference with their seaborne overseas trade. These arguments are very hard to sustain, and my experience is that the more sophisticated naval officers are themselves unconvinced that this is a sensible strategy on which to base their future policy. It becomes particularly irrelevant when one considers how strongly the then Opposition used those same arguments as a reason for not withdrawing from the Persian Gulf. Yet now the Government have accepted the logic of the argument that this was not a major factor and it was more important to ensure peaceful relations with the States surrounding the Gulf.
The only case for accepting that a military threat exists in the Indian Ocean was the view that there might be interference with Western tankers sailing from the Gulf. The Government are obsessed with the Cape. If there really is a military threat, why are the Government leaving the Gulf? They must know that of all the assessments for withdrawal the one case strongly contested by the Americans was withdrawal from the Gulf far more than from the Far East. It is the Gulf area which is the most likely place for any interference with Western shipping—the Gulf and its surrounding areas to the Indian Ocean.
Can anyone seriously believe that the Western Alliance, if confronted with a persistent threat over a period of a few days of the Russians interfering with our merchant fleet, would take—[Interruption.] The Minister of State must not make such offensive remarks. Why should we choose the Cape, far away from our shores? Why not choose an area of

the sea, if we wish to risk escalation against the Russians, nearer home?

Dr. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that since British ships going into the Indian Ocean form only about 8 per cent. of the total amount of shipping, it seems ridiculous that Britain should take unilateral action to protect the sea lanes, and is she not acting against her own interests by the decision to sell arms to South Africa?

Dr. Owen: If we accept, as my hon. Friend does, that the major threat is political, the most assinine way to go about defending it is to alienate practically all the countries surrounding the Indian Ocean. If we think that there is a threat of military action we should not withdraw from the Gulf.
The Prime Minister would like us to believe that he has not changed his mind about the Gulf. The right hon. Gentleman finds it impossible to admit to the House that he has changed his mind. But if we look through the quotations which have been given before, the Prime Minister was firmly committed. In 1968 the right hon. Gentleman said:
and so, when the time comes—and on the Prime Minister's time schedule the opportunity will be open to us—we shall ignore the time phasing laid down by the Prime Minister and his Government for the Far East and the Middle East. We shall support our country's friends and allies and we shall restore the good name of Britain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January 1968; Vol.756, c. 1971.]
Again, in March, 1968, the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] You have not done this—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The Chair has been tolerant. I have been saddled with a number of strange requests. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep to the conventions of the House.

Dr. Owen: I shall accept the Ruling of the Chair.
The House will be interested to hear what the then Leader of the Opposition—now the Prime Minister—said. The right hon. Gentleman has never denied that on 31st March he told his friends in the Gulf that he had come to the area to discuss with them whether they wanted us to stay, and that, if they did, we would stay. Did they not want us to stay? Is this the reason for the change


in the right hon. Gentleman's policy? We now gather that they want us to leave. We always said that they wanted us to leave.
The right hon. Gentleman makes great claim that his policies are different. Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at the White Paper published by the Labour Government in 1969? In that we said,
the Trucial Oman Scouts…will be incorporated in a federal force to defend the Union of Arab Emirates…we have made available the services of Major-General Sir John Willoughby and a team of experts to advise them on their defence forces. British officers will continue to assist in the development of other local forces in the Gulf and of the armed forces of the Sultan of Muscat.
It is absolutely preposterous of the Prime Minister to pretend that we did not help to bring about the Union of Arab Emirates. The key issue in getting the nine Trucial States to join together was Bahrain. The other eight refused to join with Bahrain when its status was unresolved. That diplomatic initiative was proposed by this Government and carried out by the U.N.
There is nothing in the five points contained in the Foreign Secretary's statement on the Persian Gulf which we could not and would not have applied had we remained in government. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we said practically all of this. We said that we would have regular visits by ships of the Royal Navy. We always envisaged training exercises continuing, if they wished them and would make available space. The fact is that there is no difference in policy. The right hon. Gentleman has however not been able to come to the House and tell us so.
On Far Eastern policy, at one time the right hon. Gentleman was talking of £100 million plus or minus £10 million. This has come down to £5 million or £10 million—[Interruption.] It is not a distortion. In "Man in the News" on 16th January, 1970, an I.T.V. programme, the then Leader of the Opposition said:
I am not going to tie myself down to 10 plus or minus £100 million, but it is a modest insurance premium.
That modest insurance premium is now £5 million to £10 million. That is where the nub lies. One of our anxieties is that, if we are to have that on the ground commitment, we should be attempting to

ensure that we can match it should the eventuality arise.
One thing which puzzles us about the right hon. Gentleman is the purpose of this force in the Far East. We are not so much concerned about manpower or even cost. The real question is: how do the Government envisage such a force being used? It was on this area that the Government, when in Opposition, in fact revealed their thoughts. On 8th January last year the then Leader of the Opposition said in Singapore:
The main purpose of the forces must be to prevent the stability being interfered with from outside.
On 9th January Reuter reported reliable sources as saying that under a Conservative Government British troops could be counted on to help fight even internal rebellions.

The Prime Minister: That report was never substantiated and was not true.

Dr. Owen: It seems surprising that the right hon. Gentleman never denied it.

The Prime Minister: I denied it at the time, and said so in Singapore.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Dr. Owen: If the Prime Minister says that he did not say it, I accept it and withdraw.
However, I draw attention to a statement made by the present Foreign Secretary in Kuala Lumpur in March 1970:
The Conservative-party would like Britain, Australia and New Zealand to contribute troops to a Commonwealth Counter-insurgency force in South-East Asia.
Did the right hon. Gentleman say that? If so he is committing Britain to a counter-insurgency force, which is the real reason why we need troops on the ground.
The Prime Minister has admitted that any use of force in this area could escalate into a North Vietnam situation. The right hon. Gentleman said that that risk applied just as much to the Labour Government's proposals as to his. That is inescapable. The fundamental criticism is that a token and inadequate force can easily be drawn into a confrontation in this area. This is one of our major causes of anxiety. If the threat is of direct aggression, as it was in Indonesia, it is possible to use the general capability that we planned to reinforce the area and


to come in from outside, particularly as far as the Navy is concerned.

Mr. Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Owen: I certainly will not. The Navy, over the years, has been increasingly using and relying on afloat support. The Americans have given up the concept of fixed bases because they, like the Prime Minister, know that that sort of commitment leads, as it led in Vietnam, from a small training force gradually and imperceptibly into a larger commitment.
The Prime Minister should also remember that at the height of the Malayan war, which went on through the late 1940s and early 1950s, over 70,000 British personnel were involved. At the height of the Indonesian confrontation, 50,000 men were involved. This is our major criticism of the Government.

The Prime Minister: I did not say that I thought that this was likely to run the risk of becoming a Vietnam. My belief is exactly the opposite. I believe that such political decisions must always rest with the Cabinet of the day. I specifically said that British Governments have had to handle this kind of situation over a long period. The risk does not come from using an existing facility in Singapore instead of afloat support. The risk does not come from having forces on the ground as a deterrent. That reduces the risk. In any case, the Labour Government were prepared to send out vast forces provided the risk was worth taking. It is therefore no argument that having a force on the ground increases the risk. It reduces the risk, because, as the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) said yesterday, it is a deterrent.

Dr. Owen: The question can be posed in circumstances which we have had to face. In 1969 in Malaysia, there were severe racial riots. We were, or could be thought to have been, under A.M.D.A., bound to intervene. Would a British Government—[Interruption.] It is a different sort of interpretation. One can argue that we did not, but certainly there would have been a point at which we could have. But if we had troops actually there, as we did at that time—not many in Malaysia, mainly in Singapore—there is the danger of actually being

involved on a day-to-day basis, first protecting our bases and then escalating to further protection, then being asked in by the government, and finding it difficult to refuse. These things have happened in the past and there is a grave danger that they will happen in the future. The inadequacy of the force undermines to a certain extent any deterrent effect.
When we were talking in terms of our presence in the Far East, as the right hon. Gentleman keeps reminding us, it was a fairly formidable presence—

Sir F. Bennett: Token.

Dr. Owen: One has only to look at the token force in terms of numbers. The force which still exists out there and the force which was planned to be there just for the last stages of the withdrawal was over 9,000.
So what I am saying is that the major belief always has been that we should try to have, if we have commitments, sufficient forces to back them up on the ground. If we have not sufficient forces to do so, they could be made available when we want and how we want as a direct decision, and to that extent, we believed that a general capability of reinforcement was essential.
Although I am a strong European, I do not take the view that we can completely abdicate our responsibilities in and around the world, but our prime responsibility is in Europe and the Tories have a record of getting over-committed, overstretched, pulling out and leaving inadequate forces in Europe and getting stretched worldwide. This is the major criticism.
Thus, at the end of this debate, I would ask my hon. Friends to vote not only for our Amendment but against the whole of this White Paper. It represents so much of what we on this side dislike about the present Government. It is arrogant in tone and in places it is full of humbug. At times it uses offensive language, it is dangerous in the long term because of over-commitments in the Far East, and, above all, it represents a whole series of broken pledges from this Government, and from a Prime Minister who boasted of himself as a man of principle. For this reason, we will ask the House to reject it.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I should like first of all to congratulate the Prime Minister on his clear exposition of the present position and his comprehensive review. I regret that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) did not make an equally useful and valuable contribution. Instead, he devoted so much of his time to making a partisan speech and had to repeat the red herring introduced yesterday, that the Secretary of State does not sit in this House. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman, because I am not clear what he was trying to prove, apart from making petty party political points.
I listened most attentively to yesterday's debate, and I am rather surprised that one of the main criticisms was that we were not increasing expenditure. The Opposition seem befuddled with the idea that, by just spending more money, one will get better and stronger Services. That is not necessarily true, especially in defence. At the moment, I see little point in spending more money, as the limiting factor in defence today is not money but manpower. There is no point in spending more money on equipment if the men are not there to use it. What the present Government have done is use the available manpower to the best advantage.
I congratulate the Government on reaching agreement with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore on a military presence in South-East Asia, on their policy for the Gulf, on selling maritime arms to South Africa and on reaching agreement with Nepal on the Gurkhas. All these achievements mean freeing United Kingdom troops so that we can better cover existing commitments with existing manpower.
I also congratulate the Minister on the White Paper, as a factual account of our defences and proposals in the near future. Unfortunately, of course, the White Paper reveals many deficiencies and weaknesses, but it shows a realistic approach by the Services to current problems. It is no longer true to say that the Services are preparing for the next war by training for the last. I am particularly pleased that the Government have confirmed their intention to maintain a presence in South-East Asia and have successfully concluded arrange-

ments in the Five-Power Pact for integrated and balanced forces in this area, as this will undoubtedly help stability.
We cannot, of course, stay in any area unless we are wanted, but both Malaysia and Singapore told us last autumn that they wanted us to maintain a presence in that area for at least the next five to ten years, because of the scarcity of their technicians, experienced N.C.O.s and senior officers—a scarcity which only time, of course, can cure. They may need advice and technical help for quite a long time.
The right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) spoke about racial disturbances in South-East Asia, but we were assured by the Malaysians and Singaporeans that they are capable of maintaining internal security now against infiltration, but not aggression, from outside.
It is satisfactory that the Government have reached agreement with Nepal over the strength of the Gurkhas, as those troops are most valuable in Hong Kong and the Far East. But I am concerned about the supply position to Hong Kong following the rundown in Singapore. Can the Minister assure the House that base supplies for an emergency will be available in Singapore or Australia and that Hong Kong will not have to rely on supplies from the United Kingdom? The White Paper covers the supply to Singapore after the rundown, but it does not mention Hong Kong.
Yesterday, much emphasis was placed on the Indian Ocean and the Gulf. There can be no doubt that this is a serious and growing problem, but experience has shown that the Russians have not tried to get into any area where we have a presence, however small, but that, as soon as we leave a strategic area, the Russians move in. There is a good example in Hong Kong. There, we have comparatively small forces of five infantry battalions and one artillery regiment facing two or three divisions in Red China.
No one pretends that, if China wanted to move into Hong Kong, it could not do so but China knows that, if she wants Hong Kong, she can get it but only by fighting for it. This is in contrast with nearby Macao. The Portuguese there made no attempt to defend it. The


Chinese have moved in, and, to all intents and purposes, it is now a Chinese possession.
I would welcome an extension of bases in the Indian Ocean, in Mauritius for example, but in addition to and not in place of other bases. It would, however, be unrealistic to think that we could undertake additional bases with our present manpower situation. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) said yesterday, 75 per cent. of Europe's oil goes around the Cape, so perhaps we could persuade our European friends to take more interest in the Indian Ocean and join us in that direction.
The basic problem in our defences is manpower. We are all glad to know that recruiting has improved. While that is largely due to better pay and conditions, the Government can take credit for clearly indicating to the Services that there is a worth-while long-term career in the forces, and the rate of re-engagement indicates that the Services appreciate this.
Attention is rightly drawn in the White Paper to the effects of raising the school-leaving age. Agreement should, and could. be reached between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Education to enable recruits to join at 15 and still continue their education. This does not seem to need any change of principle because for a considerable time junior officers have attended university full-time, and now we see from the White Paper that City and Guilds Certificates are being awarded to P.Os. and leading ratings. This principle could, I believe, be extended.
I am particularly pleased to see that attention is being paid to the serious problem of the rehabilitation of families from Singapore who are being sent home in advance of their men. Both husbands and wives were worried about how the wives would cope on their own, with finding accommodation, looking after the furnishings, finding schools and the many family problems which arise when wives do not have their husbands with them to help. I am sure that the emphasis which the White Paper gives about the Ministry of Defence realising these problems and taking steps to deal with them

will have a great effect on recruiting and re-engagement.
I am concerned over the strength of the Royal Navy because it takes longer to build up this Service than any other. For example, it takes longer to build ships than tanks or aircraft. I am concerned when I see that no more Polaris submarines are on order or projected. Of our existing four, one is undergoing a long refit, and obviously the remaining three can maintain only one, and occasionally two, at sea continuously. We should have a fifth Polaris submarine so that we could always have two, and often three, at sea at once.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) I am pleased to see that the design of the through-deck cruiser has started. I hope the Minister will be able to tell the House when the first ship is expected to be in commission and whether that will occur before the carriers are phased out. I am pleased also to note that a new general purpose frigate is being designed. Is close contact being maintained with the designers of the Amazon class in this connection?
I welcome the statement that Portsmouth Dockyard will be fully employed within the next year and I hope the Minister will assure us that there will be no further rundown in employment in this area. I renew my plea that the Department should place a contract for the building of a ship in Portsmouth Dockyard. It is a great boost to morale to see a ship started at the keel plate, finally to see it slide down the ways as a complete entity. I assure my right hon. Friend that if he places an order he will not regret it. Portsmouth ships are well and quickly built. They are completed on time and at an economic price.

5.53 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) that the Government should consider, in the recruiting of young men, allowing them to continue with their education. It is obvious that all three Services will face great recruiting problems with the raising of the school-leaving age. I hope that during this series of defence debates we shall be told how the various Services intend to tackle this problem.
I did not agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, when he said that it was a red herring for anybody to drag into the debate the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence is in the House of Lords. We have frequently protested against Ministers in charge of huge spending Departments being in another place and we are making a legitimate criticism of the Government by stressing this point on this occasion.
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister's affirmation that N.A.T.O. is the foundation of our security. I listened to most of yesterday's debate and I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman affirm that, after all the buzz and fuzz. However, before dealing with N.A.T.O. I wish to comment on the Gulf. The Prime Minister taunted the then Labour Government for not giving the Gulf States help in forming a union. I am surprised that a Conservative Prime Minister should criticise the Labour Government, after all the failures of the previous Conservative Government in laying down federations, failures which I regret very much indeed.
There were the failures in the Caribbean, in Malaysia and, above all, the failure of the East African Federation, which never even got off its feet. As a result of the experience of those failed federations, I supported—indeed, I advised—the Labour Government in approaching the Gulf States in a quite different way. That different approach was to offer advice but to do nothing whatever which might appear to be seeking to impose a federation after a pattern conceived in London.
I welcome the emphasis in the White Paper on the importance of N.A.T.O., and I was glad to hear the remarks of the Prime Minister in this context. I want N.A.T.O. to be strong, for two reasons. The first is so that it is in balance with the power of the Warsaw Pact because, under this umbrella of balanced forces, fear can be removed and a climate can be created in which there may be a détente and a reduction of armaments.
The second reason why N.A.T.O. should be strong is that we must be seen to be capable of deterring Russian aggression. Only two and a half years ago Russia, with Warsaw Pact forces, invaded

Czechoslovakia. There was fear, not so much in this country but certainly on the Continent of Europe. N.A.T.O. should be strong enough to ensure that such fear is impossible.
Since I want N.A.T.O. to be militarily strong so that we are in balance with the Warsaw Pact, it follows that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Frank Allaun), I do not wish to reduce the percentage of our gross national product going to N.A.T.O. Instead, I want to encourage our European allies, who are getting their defence on the cheap at present, to raise their contributions to the same percentage of their G.N.P. as we are devoting to N.A.T.O. This applies particularly to France and Germany.
I emphasise again—I am sorry to labour the point but it is the basis of my argument—that I want the strength of N.A.T.O. to balance that of the Warsaw Pact, not just for the sake of balancing it but because it is the only way by which we shall be able to create an atmosphere free from fear and a climate for détente and the reduction of the burden of arms.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is contradicting his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen)? On the central front in air power there is a superiority of two to one being disposed by the Warsaw Pact. Does he suggest that we increase our air forces to meet that threat?

Sir G. de Freitas: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening to all of my argument. I do not want to increase the proportion of the G.N.P. which we devote to defence. I want our allies in Europe, who, as I explained, are now getting their defence on the cheap, to use the same amount of their G.N.P. as we use for N.A.T.O., especially on the central front, so enabling N.A.T.O. to be strong enough to be in balance with the Warsaw Pact. I went on to say that that would enable fear to be removed and a climate to be established in which it might be possible to reduce the burden of arms.
Above all, I want to strengthen N.A.T.O. politically. There is great need of this, because public opinion, and even what should be informed public opinion,


is confused as to N.A.T.O.'s rôle and purpose, and I will give a few examples of what I mean.
For some domestic American political reason, the study of pollution has suddenly been thrust on the already overextended N.A.T.O. Secretariat, at a time when the problem of pollution is already being worked on in the Council of Europe, O.E.C.D. and the U.N. European Agency. Furthermore, the two countries which in Europe suffer as much as any from problems of pollution are Switzerland and Sweden. Sweden suffers because of the Baltic. Neither of them is a member of N.A.T.O. The Baltic is an enormous problem. Only a tiny part of its coast is a N.A.T.O. country's coastline. It is nonsense to force on to the agenda the subject of pollution when N.A.T.O. has quite enough to do with its military rôle. It could not possibly have happened if there had been a place where European Members of Parliament and American congressmen could debate whether it was desirable to do this.
Another misunderstanding of the nature of N.A.T.O. was shown on 18th February when The Times defence correspondent wrote that Britain
… stands between N.A.T.O. and the Soviet Union.
We are the largest European power in N.A.T.O. We cannot possibly be described as being outside it. On any view we are essentially part of it. It is alarming when a very distinguished correspondent can nod like that, even for a moment.
Congressmen and Members of Parliament are often very ignorant about the state of the Alliance and the contributions of their allies. I have found that important United States senators and congressmen appear to have no idea of Britain's defence contribution which, as we have already discussed, is much larger than that of any other ally of the United States.
The Prime Minister referred to the possibility of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Europe. I have found that distinguished United States senators and congressmen do not fully appreciate the consequences which this would have for Europe. Such a withdrawal would not be a spur to greater effort by our continental allies, as they argue. Instead a United States withdrawal would be interpreted by the man in the street on the Continent

as a sign that the greatest military Power in the world had decided that the threat was not so great.
Incidentally, our Continental allies will be encouraged by what was said yesterday and today about the Government's conversion on the Gulf. Many continental Members of Parliament thought that Government policy would weaken our European contribution in order to build up east of Suez. I have been reminded politely by Continental Members of Parliament that by the Treaty of 1954 we bound ourselves to maintain our forces in Europe at a certain level, and it seemed clear to them that if the Government turned away towards east of Suez it could be only at the cost of our contribution to N.A.T.O. in Europe. They will be much relieved by what was said yesterday.
Again, the Americans did not seem to realise the difficult problems raised by the fact that Greece is in our Alliance. Not all hon. Members opposite share my belief on this, but unfortunately the existence of Greece in our Alliance undermines a great deal of what N.A.T.O. originally stood for.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There are military arguments that Greece, because of its geographical position, is of overwhelming importance to N.A.T.O. We have to balance one argument against another. That is why opportunities for discussion on these matters should be much more frequent among the parliamentary members of our Alliance. Many distinguished and important American senators and congressmen do not appreciate that many members of N.A.T.O. are concerned about Greece.
On the other hand, Europeans who are concerned with supporting N.A.T.O. in their respective countries do not realise that North America has a right to involve itself in European defence because, after all, twice in this century young men from Seattle and Vancouver have died in battle in Western Europe, as have young men from Vladivostok. If the Soviet Union is concerned in European defence, so is North America.
I am convinced that many of the misunderstandings and misconceptions could be made much less likely if there were a forum for debating problems of the Alliance. I am asking for an official consultative assembly of N.A.T.O. on the


lines of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. Since 1955 we have had an unofficial annual meeting of Members of Parliament and congressmen from the N.A.T.O. countries. Gradually, because it has no Dower and no money and is an unofficial body, our Governments have become reconciled to it. "Reconciled" is the strongest word which I can use. Even the British Government at the time—I remember it well because I was deeply involved in 1955—fought desperately against its establishment. The Government are now reconciled to it.
I regret that successive British Governments have been against turning this into an official assembly. I should like to tell the House of something which M. Spaak said in 1959. Why do I quote him? M. Spaak has been Prime Minister of his country, Foreign Secretary, President of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, and Secretary-General of N.A.T.O. When he was Secretary-General of N.A.T.O. he said that he was in favour of parliamentary supervision of N.A.T.O., and he went on to emphasise that he meant "international" parliamentary supervision and not "national" parliamentary supervision, such as we all have. He said that in 1959. He told us that his experience as a civil servant at N.A.T.O. had confirmed his political experience that
For an administrative service the fear of a parliament is the beginning of wisdom.
The unofficial N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Assembly has met every year since 1955. The quality of its members is high. The British and American people have always been of a high standard. I will mention only people who have led their parties. When he was a Senator, we had President Johnson. We had Mr. Gaitskell. We had the present Leader of the Opposition. But because it is unofficial the N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Assembly suffers from lack of resources to get the best out of its debates and meetings.
What should be done? It should be made official. There are problems in doing so because of France's lack of interest in N.A.T.O. But the other countries should go ahead on their own, as they have done in N.A.T.O. in the Defence Planning Committee, which is made up of the representatives of the

members of the North Atlantic Council who take part in N.A.T.O.'s integrated defence, that is to say, all the countries except France. They might also have to exclude Greece because Greece is no longer a member of the North Atlantic Assembly because she has no Parliament from which to draw delegates.
At first sight there is one very good argument against making this Assembly official. It is that it would create yet another parliamentary assembly while we find, because of the traditional, ritualistic, self-intoxicating dances in our Whips' Offices on both sides of the House, whichever Government is in power, difficulty in maintaining our parliamentary representation at the Assemblies we already attend. That is a good argument against it, but it is less good if we contemplate the amalgamation of the Assembly of the Western European Union with the N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Assembly. Both Assemblies are concerned with defence and both are concerned with the same problems. One deals with Members of Parliament from seven countries and the other deals with Members from 14 countries. We could achieve a great deal by combining these. I hope that the Government will study this suggestion.
What is the Government's attitude to the North Atlantic Assembly? In the defence debate two years ago the then Secretary of State said this:
Her Majesty's Government fully support the view that the conference should be given official standing in N.A.T.O. Unfortunately, we have not yet persuaded all our colleagues in the N.A.T.O. Council to agree."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1969; Vol.779, c. 542.]
What has happened since then? Has there been an advance? Has there been a retreat? Are we standing still? We do not have to get all our colleagues to agree. We did not get all our colleagues to agree to set up the Defence Planning Committee; we left out France. We can leave out France again. I remind the House of what Mr. Spaak said when he was Secretary-General of N.A.T.O.:
For an administrative service the fear of a parliament is the beginning of wisdom.
Such a Parliament would not only be splendid in itself; it would also give us an opportunity to explain to our allies what we do in defence. We accept that in a democracy we need parliamentary


criticism. Cannot we go one stage further and say that in international alliance we need the criticism of an international parliamentary assembly? We know that war is too important to be left to the generals. Once again I argue that international defence is too important to be left to Ministers.

I end with a few sentences on Northern Ireland. In my constituency there are, according to the Registrar-General's report, more men and women from Ulster than in any other constituency in Britain. This may seem strange because, after all, my constituency is right in the heart of rural England, but the men have come there from Northern Ireland to work in the British Steel Corporation's plant at Corby. I agree with what has been said in praise of our Servicemen, and I am sure that my constituents from Northern Ireland, bath Protestant and Catholic, will particularly like the words in the Amendment which pay
tribute to the skill, courage and patience of the British servicemen in Northern Ireland.

6.2 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I am pleased to be able to follow the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas); because I agree with so much of what he said. At the 1970 Conservation Europe Conference in Strasbourg we raised the question of N.A.T.O.'s considering the matter of pollution. The Conference took note of it and I hope that it will not be proceeded with.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on all the work he has done in N.A.T.O. and other good European projects. He has been an outstanding example of someone who can be completely impartial and non-political, particularly in his job as Chairman of the Council of Europe. We thank him for all that he has done to help to unite Europe.
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman about Greece. I should like Greece to remain in N.A.T.O., because I think that it is necessary to protect the flank of Europe.
The right hon. Gentleman's idea as regards N.A.T.O. might be better met if W.E.U. were to be abolished, because W.E.U. is not now very active. If this suggestion were followed, many more

countries would be brought in. As France returned to W.E.U., it might be possible that she would join in the suggestion in regard to N.A.T.O. It would be very helpful if she did, because we know her present views.
I always get very distressed when I attend defence debates. Year after year we discuss things, and it is rather like a game of snap: each side of the House trying to out do the other. It is so important that we have one policy on defence. If what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested were to come about, we would have to have one policy, because we could not attend his proposed organisation, as I presume we would, without an agreed policy in Britain. Events in the past month have shown that peace is a continuation of war by other means, and I do not think that we are facing up to this.
What disturbed me about yesterday's debate—and I read the article in The Times this morning by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—and also from being a delegate to W.E.U. is that we have not got a policy which is common to both sides of the House.
I may be very unpopular for saying this, but I want there to be an all-party committee which could meet the chiefs of the Services and get down to deciding a common policy. Having listened to defence debates for 15 years, I believe that we are getting nowhere, and I do not believe that this is for the benefit of the British people. It also makes things very difficult in regard to recruiting for example. To give examples, we are agreed on the strength of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We are agreed on the question of maintenance and improvement of our military contribution to N.A.T.O.; we are agreed that this should remain our first priority. We are agreed on the policy in Ulster and we are agreed about W.E.U.
In regard to the Far East, it is just a difference of emphasis. The Labour Government mounted a major exercise to prove that they could send troops out there. I have had some experience of working with the military in the Far East. It is far better to have a base there with troops on it, because they have to get acclimatised. In Christmas 1945 there were, regrettably, a great many men


on a hospital ship suffering from complete nervous breakdowns arising from having been brought out there so quickly and having been plunged into—it was no longer fighting; in those days it was only trying to keep the peace, in Java. One nursing sister had an epileptic fit, she had gone through all her training, but going out to that complete change of climate brought on that unfortunate attack.
It would be a great help with recruiting if the Services knew that both parties were agreed. It is very disturbing for members of the Services not to know for sure from one year to another what the policy is to be. It is not just a question of the change of Government. They do not know from one year to another how the Service they are in will be affected. This affects civilians, too, because the Services employs many civilians.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) will know how disturbing it is to dockyard towns not to know the policy of the Government from one year to the next. The White Paper says that Devonport has not signed the productivity agreement. It has now signed it, but it could not be blamed for being rather cautious about the productivity agreement in view of what happened in regard to H.M.S. "Ark Royal". In those days men went in and out day after day not knowing whether when they came out in the evening their jobs would have been terminated.
I hope that those hon. Members who have spoken about recruiting and the views of young people will back me up, because recruits are definitely worried about the changes. Young people fail completely to understand why there should be any difference between the parties about the protection of their lives and their country. It militates against their either taking much interest in defence or in joining the Services if people think that both sides are playing politics and are not serious on defence or even on disarmament.
I am as much interested in disarmament as I am in defence. This is not a contradiction in one who represents a Service area, because one will always need a force for keeping the peace, in the same way as we have the police.
I hope that all those who are interested in disarmament will realise that there is the European Security Conference. The Warsaw Pact countries have not shown any real desire, despite the repeated invitations by N.A.T.O. countries, to get round the conference table. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will try to further this work of getting the two sides together.
We must be realistic. The expansion of the Russian Fleet, which is now the major maritime force, is a threat to our naval force and our seaborne trade in the West and in all the seas in the world. In 1939 the Germans had 73 submarines. Now Russia appears to have 400 of which one-quarter are said to be nuclear powered. We remember how very nearly we were beaten in the early days of the last war by the German fleet. This is the kind of point that worries me. I have a feeling that if we keep all our troops in the N.A.T.O. and do not protect our seas it could mean another "Maginot Line" and that they might get caught in Europe with submarines all round our shores—I believe this is a realistic attitude—and I am thinking of our shores, not the shores of South Africa. We could be in an extremely vulnerable position. Therefore, the policies of this country—and I must say that if we are asking for an all-party committee—should not change with Governments but should change only with changing military circumstances.
I wish to stress this for two particular reasons. If we are to carry out our commitments it is essential to have more recruits. How is that possible when there is so much uncertainty about the future? It has to be remembered that the Communist-led unofficial dock strike in 1967 which led, unfortunately, to the financial crisis of 1968 resulted in the Cabinet being pressed by Left-wing members, because of cuts in the social services, to increase the pace of withdrawal from east of Suez. I do not want this type of pressure to be put on any Government in future.
We have also to realise the amount of money being spent by Warsaw Pact countries which has been going up by about 5 per cent. a year for the past five years, while the expenditure of N.A.T.O. has declined by 4 per cent. since 1964. I believe that owing to the horror of nuclear


war it is the country or countries which have the greater conventional forces which will win; Cuba is an example of this. I believe, therefore, that we must strengthen the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Whatever happens, we have our fishery protection and peaceful activities like the Hydrographic Service, and we still have, regrettably, commitments such as Ulster. I would like to pay a tribute to the troops there and, having been there, to put in a plea that if troops are to go there for six-month periods they should have better accommodation.
Having been recently to the Far East, I feel that no praise can be high enough for the rescue work done in East Pakistan and Malaysia.
I want to mention one very controversial point, the question of the Beira Control. Personally, I believe that we are completely wasting our manpower and ships in this operation which is costing nearly £2 million a year. Why should we continue to do this any more than we should continue being a major Power in N.A.T.O. without other countries taking part, when we know perfectly well that everything Rhodesia needs is getting in by the back door? We are being very hypocritical about this. I would like to see money saved in this way and used for more serviceable purposes.
With regard to recruiting, we want 1·2 per cent. of the labour farce to join the services, but until 1976 we shall need 1·6 per cent. Therefore, we must give young people more confidence in a career in the future. I believe there is a need for Royal Navy recruiting officers at the universities. Those are very good places for interesting students. There is also the University Scholarship scheme and this could be improved; and we have to prove to students going into the services that they will have adequate equipment.
We must encourage the fleet chief petty officers—a new designation, the equivalent of the regimental sergeant major—to prolong their service after nine years. From the diagram at the end of the White Paper we see that only 35 per cent. of Royal Navy men and 32 per cent. of Royal Marines re-engage at nine years, as opposed to 50 per cent. in the Army and 59 per cent. in the R.A.F.
The major reason for men leaving the services is their wives. People are marrying younger and women today are not prepared as were their grandmothers to have long periods of separation. Housing, particularly for the Royal Navy, is still very short. I hope we shall not have the segregation "in cantonments" of Service wives in the future. I have suggested that local authorities in Service towns should be given an amount of money to enable them to allocate a number of houses in housing estates so that wives can be integrated into the normal life of the city, because as a whole young Service wives do not like senior Service wives, however charming they are at organising clubs. Young wives prefer to lead their own lives and to be near the shops rather than the NAAFI; they want to join in the life of the town.
In olden times the young naval wife was better off when she lived near her mother and was able to join the local activities.
Furthermore, when wives are to go overseas they should be given some idea of the type of life they are to lead. Quite a number of them have never been even to London but they are sent to places with completely different customs and languages and so are not very happy. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Royal Navy is setting up a special enquiry into the problems of these young people and I hope you will include this subject.
One hon. Gentleman yesterday spoke of sailors, soldiers and airmen working as clerks, typists, telephone operators and computer operators. I agree with him that these men could perfectly well be replaced by women. Experience in Israel has shown that where women work with men morale is better. Also, are we not demanding too much of recruits? In the nursing service we have the example of the State Registered Nurse and the State Enrolled Nurse. Are we not demanding far too high a standard? Could there not be two types as in nursing?
I must mention the dockyards because people in the dockyard towns are still worried about these being hived off. Secondly, regrettably dockyard workers come within the cut in the number of civil servants. I would suggest as I have done previously that non-industrial and industrial civil servants in this type of organisation should not be added to the total number of civil servants. I believe that


since this Government have been in power the number of civil servants has gone up by 4,000 and so the Government are very anxious to cut down the number, but in places like he dockyards this would be to defeat their object because, for example, there are not enough draftsmen. People working in dockyards should come under a different category and should not be counted in with the general run of the Civil Service. I believe this practice will be found to be delaying essential work. I would add to the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) previously, that we should have another ship in the near future, if possible, to be built in the dockyard. On 20th March, R.D.V. "Crystal" will be launched and after that we shall be happy to have another ship. Though I realise that dockyards are, for the most part, repair yards, it is hoped that they may again build ships, which they have proved they can do adequately, and it is rather boring for dockyard workers if they have only to do repair work.
I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman who winds up will encourage men to come from places like Malaysia and Nigeria to train with the Royal Navy, so that we can help to build up their navies. More encouragement to immigrants to join our Services is needed.
If only the United Nations were more effective it would be possible to stop the selling of arms and reach settlements without wars, but since 1945 all countries have had to spend and waste a large amount of their G.N.P. on defending their nations against possible attack. The waste of manpower and money has been fantastic.
If the world is to achieve an advanced civilisation we must consider ways of avoiding wars. That is why I want an all-party Committee, so that we can have some agreement in this country; we shall, perhaps, then be able to overcome the difficulty of having the Secretary of State in another place, because he would be able to join us. If we could have a common defence policy in this country it would prove worthwhile and help peace in the future.

6.30 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvingrove): Under the heading
Western Security

in the White Paper there are the words
The Continuing Threat".
The paragraph underneath says:
Western security remains under the shadow of the present and potential threat of the vast military resources of the Soviet Union.
The choice of the phrase
present and potential
is curious. It does not say "present or potential" nor "present and future", or even "existing and potential". I find the words rather confusing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) observed yesterday, some people are completely obsessed by anything the Russians say or do. That is understandable in those who have been fed continual propaganda calculated to divide the world into the good guys and the bad guys or, as they say in my native heath, the goodies and the baddies. That is a simple, clear-cut, tidy and neat definition.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1969, which said:
The Czechoslovak crisis … demonstrates that the Soviet Government is prepared to invade an independent state against the wishes of its Government and people …
Would the hon. Gentleman say that the Czechoslovak people have been obsessed with the tyranry to which they have been subjected?

Dr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman must wait. I shall develop points on this. I do not object to the contention that the Soviet Union gobbled up Czechoslovakia. Of course it did, and no hon. Member on this side can find anything good to say about what the Russians did on that or other similar occasions. But what the Russians did to Czechoslovakia may or may not affect us. That is exactly the point I am coming to later. We must accept that dangers exist, but we must not over-react to them. An attitude of over-reaction is indefensible when it is held by responsible members of a Government who should, and I believe do, know better.
Here I come to the hon. Gentleman's point. It would be criminal folly not to react to a threat, and I do not suggest otherwise. When our interests are in jeopardy we must defend them. But we must make a calculated decision about


when they are threatened. Are they threatened now? Is it not a fact that the Soviet Union is merely acting as the super Power which it is? I have few reasons to applaud the U.S.S.R., and many reasons to criticise very strongly both her words and her deeds. But is she really threatening us? I believe that that question is as valid of the presence of Soviet vessels in the Indian Ocean as of their presence in the Mediterranean.
In yesterday's debate the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell), in a very interesting and candid speech, implied that he had no use for those whom he terms either Left-wing pacificists or right-wing sabre-rattlers. The trouble is that there are too many sabre-rattlers. I do not see anything wrong, as some hon. Members opposite seem to, with a climate in which there is greater stress on peace than on war. I see nothing to be ashamed of when the younger generation is no longer impressed by the so-called glories of war.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also talked about the difficulties of recruitment and remarked that most Western countries had similar problems, citing France, West Germany and Italy as examples. If we keep calm in our defence attitudes and rid ourselves of inflexible notions it may be that we can cajole and persuade the Russians to join the anti-war club. If we have to adopt an inflexible attitude that the Russians will never do that, then the future of mankind is doomed.
If we are so concerned about Russian influence on non-aligned nations, why are the Government so intent on destroying all the influence we have, influence so laboriously and slowly built up, by supplying arms to South Africa?
In Europe we should be paying much more attention to the attitude adopted and the policies adumbrated and followed by Herr Willy Brandt's Government. In their Ostpolitik they have arrived at something we should be arriving at. They are moving towards a modus vivendi with the Russians. No nation has more reason to fear the Russians, rightly or wrongly, but the West Germans will arrive at a compromise solution. This country can learn a lesson from them, which the Government would do well to pay attention to.
Last September I visited defence establishments in South-East Asia and the Far East. In Singapore we have about 18,000 Service personnel, presumably to defend the island against external aggression. In 1942 we had 10 times that number, 180,000 men, and we could not defend the island against external aggression.
I am not happy about what I saw in Singapore—the multiplication of social facilities for the troops, with clubs, swimming pools and so on. This is very wasteful, as is the £800 a week being spent on cutting the grass at Changi, a sum which was reduced from a much higher figure.
The White Paper mentions the Jungle Warfare School in Johore in Malaysia. I agree that there is a need for the School, but if we feel that it should be retained why is it not to be retained under British control instead of being handed over? It has done a lot of good work, and it should remain under the British Government's control and not be handed over to any other Government.
The White Paper also mentions the Caribbean area, which I have visited several times. I remember a few years ago being in British Honduras. I regret that there will only be an infantry company group out there. If ever a bigger force could be justified in order to deter external aggression, it is in that territory. Mark my words—when British Honduras obtains independence, it is virtually certain that neighbouring Guatemala, which for years has cast covetous eyes on its tiny neighbour, will either invade or exert tremendous pressure upon little British Honduras not to resist being swallowed up. Any ordinary citizen of British Honduras would back up amply my fears in this connection.
I turn now to Northern Ireland. While not dissenting in any way from the view, expressed by so many right hon. and hon. Members, that the Army is doing a thankless but necessary job, I remind the Government that they must not forget that the problem in that unhappy part of the United Kingdom is not primarily military. It requires a political and economic solution. Religious discrimination must stop; equal political rights must he accorded to the Roman Catholic minority; economic prosperity must be fostered and discrimination in jobs and


housing must be stamped out. That is the problem. It is not primarily military, and the Government would be well advised to turn their attention from the military side, necessary as it is at the moment, to ways of tackling the problem, which is essentially economic and political.
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) mentioned the Beira patrol. The White Paper makes bare mention of it or of the United Nations embargo on the export of oil to Rhodesia. It almost seems as though the Government were apologising for the distasteful necessity to comply with the United Nations. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) put it in his clearest, pro-rebel way when he said:
With regard to the Beira patrol, I do not want to embarrass the Government but there really is something a little grotesque about a Conservative Government maintaining this maritime charade, which is pointless and unpopular…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1971; Vol. 812, c. 1289.]
"Grotesque", the hon. Gentleman says. It is not the only thing which is grotesque about this Government, with their nationalisation policy. He advised the Government to put an end to the Beira patrol. Certainly, I think that if we must spend money on defence, this is a worth while field. The Rhodesians, after all, are rebelling against the Crown. I know that this is a reiteration but one does not destroy the fact that they are rebelling by reiterating it. Whatever their grievances, real or imaginary, we must do every thing in our power to bring Rhodesia back into the constitutional fold.
I come now to pay, pensions and facilities. It is very welcome to have the new military salary arrangement. This was an innovation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Healey). But prevention of separation of married Servicemen from their families still leaves something to be desired. There is still undue delay, very often, in families joining the husband. The unmarried Serviceman also needs consideration—for example, as has been suggested, he should have shorter tours.
Exaggerated responses, even to legitimate fears, are signs of pathological abnormality and defence expenditure thus based is self-defeating. The Prime Minister talked about the minimum expenditure compatible with efficiency. The trouble is that we can never be sure of what is the minimum required and we tend therefore always to over-react. We cannot hope to keep pace with Soviet military spending. It is quite impossible. In any case, so much of Soviet military spending is very largely political window dressing.
I repeat to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) that I do not say that we should not always be on our guard but we have to make much cooler calculations if we wish to avoid being enmeshed by decisions which spring from obsession and dogma and are not based on a reasonable and logical appraisal of the defence of our interests.
Our policy is a matter of judgment. Many of us on this side of the House see it in an entirely different light from that in which it is seen by hon. Members opposite. But it is a matter of judgment, and we must not be accused of lack of patriotism if we see it differently from the way in which they see it. We must have some confidence in the future and a degree of trust, otherwise we may have to announce—and this I would regret very much—to our people that we regret to intimate that tomorrow has been cancelled because nuclear power will destroy us and we no longer care.

6.46 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) ranged over a wide variety of subjects, but I want to take up one of his points only. He said that he would like to see a modus vivendi with the Soviet Union. Wouldn't we all? The trouble is that it takes two to make a modus vivendi.
I was interested in what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) said about the North Atlantic Assembly. Like him, I have served on it for many years, and I too would like to see it given official status. I hope that the Government will take what he said very seriously. I shall not repeat his arguments but I endorse them.


I also endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) had to say about an all-party defence committee. We discussed this in last year's debate and I think that there is a very great deal to be said for it, especially if we are to aim at having some kind of all-party defence policy.
In last year's debate, I gave it as my view that the best thing about the White Paper produced by the then Secretary of State was that it left a number of options open to his Conservative successor. And so it has turned out. First of all, thanks to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Healey)—I am sorry that he is not here to get this modest tribute from me—we still have with us our old friend, the independent British nuclear deterrent, the abolition of which, some hon. Members opposite may remember, was one of the principal planks in their 1964 election platform. Secondly, by retaining the right to train and exercise British forces in the Far East, he kept a foothold for us east of Suez which is now, I am glad to say, being consolidated and developed—I only wish that he had done the same in the Persian Gulf instead of cutting the ground from under our feet as he did. Thirdly, by leaving even tiny territorial cadres in existence, he made possible the present successful revival and re-expansion of our reserve forces. For these small mercies we should be grateful to him, and I would of course also like to congratulate his successors on the alacrity with which they have availed themselves of the opportunities he afforded them.
If last year's White Paper left a number of options open, it also left a number of questions unanswered. I want to spend a few minutes trying to see if we can find the answers to some of those questions in the 1971 edition.
One thing that this year's White Paper makes abundantly clear is the nature and scope of the Government's defence objectives. On page 1 we are told that Britain's basic security continues to depend on the strength of the North Atlantic Alliance but that British interests and responsibilities are not limited to the N.A.T.O. area and that the Government's chief objective is

to enable Britain to resume a proper share of responsibility for the preservation of peace and stability in the world"—
an aim which I for one have no difficulty in endorsing.
What is more both the White Paper and Ministers' speeches leave no doubt as to thinking that lies behind these aims. We are told, straight out, that they are motivated by the continuing and growing Soviet threat to Western security. I am very glad that the Government have been so forthright about this. I do not see any point in doing what some hon. Members opposite have tried to do, namely blinking what are indisputable and incontrovertible facts. I agree of course that the new Soviet military presence in a great many different parts of the world is largely political and psychological in motive. But in the prevailing nuclear stalemate, that is what makes it so particularly important that we and our allies should try to match that wherever possible and should not give the Russians the chance to extend it still further by continuing to pull out from more and more areas of strategic, political or psychological importance, leaving it to them to fill the power vacuum thus created. Which is why I am less than happy about what is happening at the moment in the Persian Gulf. The Minister of State emphasised the importance of Europe. Europe certainly is important. But I am inclined to share President Nixon's view that the threat to peace is every bit as great in the Middle East.
I was extremely glad to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State being so brutally frank yesterday about the Warsaw Pact's enormous conventional superiority over N.A.T.O.—about what he called" the massive expansion of Soviet military might". Again this is indisputable and must be faced, especially since my noble Friend tells us that the gap between our relative strengths is widening all the time. How right he was, too, to say that we must not leave everything to the Americans, that we Europeans must bear a bigger share of the burden. That again is a view which I strongly support.
I was also delighted to hear my noble Friend stress the relative importance of conventional forces. This is something some of us used to have great arguments about back in 1957. But by now I think most rational people have discarded the idea of streamlined nuclear forces and


a "bigger bang for a buck" being the be-all and end-all of defence policy and have come round to the view that, when it comes to the point, conventional forces, an adequate conventional presence in the right place at the right time, in other words a proper conventional deterrent are every bit as important as a nuclear deterrent.
All this is fine. But there are one or two things I am worried about. One of them is this. At the moment N.A.T.O., on which the whole of our defence policy is based, is barely credible. We were told in last year's White Paper that N.A.T.O.'s conventional strength was "just sufficient" to afford a minimum flexibility of response before recourse to nuclear weapons. In other words the nuclear threshold was so low as to be practically non-existent. And now my noble Friend tells us that the gap in conventional strength between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact powers is "steadily widening". So that presumably the "minimum flexibility of response", the tiny nuclear threshold we were told about last year, has now disappeared altogether or soon will.
The Minister of State said yesterday that we must "be prepared to face unpalatable facts squarely and to react appropriately". Now is his chance. Because if these are not unpalatable facts, I do not know what are. He himself has stressed the need for stronger conventional forces and he says that we Europeans must make a bigger contribution to the alliance. How right he is. What I want to know is how we are going to do it and what we are prepared to spend on it? Because, quite honestly one T.A.V.R. armoured car regiment, however excellent, will not be enough to tip the balance. As my noble Friend so wisely said, "Safety has a price which has to be paid for. If one is not prepared to pay for peace one risks paying for it in war." And let us be quite clear that just because our contribution to N.A.T.O. compares favourably with those of our European allies, it does not automatically follow from that that it is adequate.
But let us leave aside for the moment the question of costs and turn to the equally unpleasant question of manpower. Because the fact is that you cannot have bigger, better, stronger conven-

tional forces without more men. And we all know that the recruiting figures, though better, are still far too low to support any kind of increase in targets. What it comes to, I am afraid, is that raising a sufficient force by voluntary recruiting is not an easy matter. Indeed I feel some sympathy with the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee of Congress who said last week:
I think the only way to get an all volunteer army is to draft it.
The draft of course, is not a very popular subject among politicians and never has been. Nobody likes paying that particular price for peace although nearly all our allies, except for Luxembourg and Canada, and all our adversaries, do in fact pay it. But, even so, however repugnant the subject may be, I hope that in winding up tonight the Minister will give us some idea where the Government think they are going to get the men they look like needing if we are really to have bigger conventional forces.
Naturally, like the hon. Member for Kelvingrove, we all hope that the Russians will have a change of heart—I have been hoping that for 30-odd years. We hope, too, that the Americans will not decide to bring back any more troops from Europe under the pressures to which they, too, are subjected. We hope that none of our other allies will go back on any of their obligations and that we shall find it possible to fulfil our own obligations east of Suez without additional manpower. We hope that no more unexpected commitments will crop up anywhere. We hope, finally, that under a Conservative Government recruiting trends will get better and better.
Because, of course, if all these hopes materialise, there is a reasonable chance that a substantially greater defence effort will not after all be required of Great Britain. But if they do not, if things go on as they are going now, if N.A.T.O. goes on losing ground, I am afraid that the Government may have some difficult decisions to face before very long in the field of defence.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I am pleased to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). With much of what he said I agree. I disagree


with some of it, and this is also true of the White Paper. When I read it, I felt that I was looking at a White Paper of my party of about three years ago when financial restrictions made it necessary to decide that we were no longer required east of Suez.
I am pleased to see that N.A.T.O. is put down in the White Paper as a cornerstone of our defence. This is something which I have always stressed. It is said that the Russians have no intention of starting a war in Europe. I accept that, because there is no need for anybody to start a war if they can get the fruits of war without having to fight for them. Russia will never start a war because she has succeeded up to now in getting those fruits without having to fight for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) is a personal friend of mine, but I disagree with him on defence. It would be very nice if the £950 million that we should save by cutting down from 5½ per cent. to 3 per cent. of the G.N.P. could be spent on essential services, but I have a grave suspicion that if £950 million were saved on defence it would not necessarily be spent on social services. It might be more pertinent for my hon. Friend to ask somebody in Prague who did not want the Russians there whether he would rather subscribe towards £950 million or have free spectacles. I know what choice he would make.
Although I am not anti-Russian, I am guided by what has happened since 1945. Those who say that Russia is genuinely frightened of the Western Powers should bear in mind that in 1945 when we possessed the atomic weapon we were capable of imposing any treaty we wished on Europe. The fact that we did not do that shows clearly, as does our conduct since then, that we want Europe and the rest of the world to live and let live. I have no time for those who argue that Russia is justified in saying that she is frightened of what the Western Powers will do.
What does worry me about N.A.T.O. is that—as I and many hon. Members have known for too long—with conventional weapons we cannot stop the Eastern Powers if they decide to advance into Europe. The most worrying aspect of this is that for the second time in our generation we should have to make a

moral decision whether to use atomic weapons. This decision would never have to be taken by the Russians first. The Russians would not wish to use atomic weapons because they could win with conventional weapons. By economising and cutting down our conventional forces to the extent that we have done, we have been left with this problem eventually if it comes to a showdown with Eastern Europe.
I do not agree with those who say that we should not talk bluntly of these matters. The Russians talk bluntly of them, and they are matters which they understand and respect. The only time they have ever been stopped in their tracks has been when we have spoken bluntly. The Berlin blockade was called off by the Russians only because they realised that we intended to win that battle, even if it came to a showdown. They withdrew from Cuba when they realised that America was prepared to go the whole hog. It is no good being mealy-mouthed about these matters. We have to face them as the Russians face them.
I come back to the point that I do not believe that the Russians intend to initiate a war in Europe. They do not intend to initiate a war anywhere else if they can help it. What worries me is that a war could start by a miscalculation on the part of the Russians. This could have happened two years ago with Czechoslovakia, and this must have worried the Russians when they made their decision to go into that country. If there had been resistance, however futile it might have been, there was always the possibility that it would not have ended there. The next would have been Yugoslavia, and so on.
If such a situation arose in which we were not directly involved, what could we do, even if we had six or twelve months to prepare for an extension of the conflict? At present we could do nothing because we have no reserve to fall back on. For the first time in the history of this country we have no second line of defence. We have no reserve forces from which to raise a second army to try by conventional means to match the Russian forces. Even if we had six or twelve months, we should still have to fall back on the nuclear weapon, and this is what worries me.


Defence means money, and this is not popular. The House is not packed with hon. Members wishing to speak in a defence debate in order to say that we should spend more money. That does not get a Member of Parliament votes in his constituency. It is only when the crunch comes, as it came in 1938 and 1939, that people ask why they have been betrayed and not told what was required. These things should be said beforehand.
What puzzles me about my party and the Government is how they assess what should be spent on the defence forces. A person with a motor car who has a certain amount of money to spend on petrol and wants to go on a day's trip will decide where he will go by calculating how far the car will go on the petrol he puts into it. More petrol than that he will not require and less than that would be useless to him. It is the same with our defence commitments. We must decide what is required and that money must be found. That does not mean that we should have high-falutin ideas of world grandeur or of controlling places in which we have no interest and which have even less interest in us. We must be realistic, and this is where I disagree with the Government's policy. Many members of the Government are still seeking this grandeur that was once the British Empire. They have never understood that the days of dominating areas by forces have gone.
What we have to do now is to win men's minds. Have hon. Members ever considered that the only Communist country in Europe which maintained its independence after the last war was Yugoslavia. Why?—because it got its Communism—I dislike Communism, but if they want it, that is up to them—from inside and it was not imposed from outside. This is what is happening throughout the world and these are the facts we have to face.
What is happening in Romania? Let us pay a tribute to the people of Romania who over the last two or three years have taken courageous decisions which could have involved them in military occupation by the Russians. The freedom that is wanted by every country in the world will not be denied either by

Russian oppression or by British or American imperialism. There is more chance for this country and for those who think like us if these countries can win independence and a new-found freedom for themselves and not have systems imposed upon them by Russia or China.
The Prime Minister in his speech made the point that only through stability and by keeping our forces in Malaysia could we hope to reap the economic advantages which were coming to us. He was kind enough to allow me to intervene to say that it is the Japanese who are making the greatest economic advance in Malaysia. They have no troops there. Carrying the Prime Minister's argument to its logical conclusion, should we not have left the Japanese there at the end of the last war to maintain stability so that we could be free to sell the goods? To my mind, defence is a logical process. It means using forces at the point of greatest impact and discounting the outlying areas where they are immaterial to the decisions at issue.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the industrial might of America was built up under the shadow of the white ensign, and that the industrial might of the Japanese is now being built up under the protection of the United States forces? In other words, if one can get somebody else to do it for one, it is a good thing.

Mr. Crawshaw: This is a sound principle and therefore why cannot we encourage somebody else to provide this protection while we sell the goods? Let me go back to the point of Malaysia. What worries me about this area is that it is not an area with a tremendous amount of stability. It is an area in which, in some ways, democracy has been abandoned because of the possible outcome of elections. It is an area in which there is great racial tension. I believe that it is an area which will utimately be democratic in our accepted sense of the word. While we have British troops, white troops, stationed in coloured territory it acts as a catalyst for everybody who wishes to oppose that Government. The Communists make great play of the situation and everybody who wants to oppose that government points to the


presence of imperialist troops and uses it as an excuse.
I have been out to Malaysia. I know how difficult it is for Ministers when they go out there and meet people who are more British than many of the people in this country and who plead, "Do not leave us—come and support us." And they genuinely mean it. But surely what we have to decide is whether we have the forces to do it. Or are we just sending a token force and making them hostages to fortune? Can it be imagined that if trouble broke out in the Middle East we might be required to intervene by reinforcing the troops in Malaysia? I cannot imagine such a situation. I believe that what is required in this area is an understanding, in the same way that we have an understanding with New Zealand or Australia. Nothing is written down in that respect. We do not say that New Zealand or Australia cease to be part and parcel of us merely because they are not involved in N.A.T.O. We accept that in two wars they sent their men to help us. They know that if it came to the crunch and they needed our assistance, we should do what was required of us. But when one puts troops on the ground in areas where one is not able to reinforce them, it leads to a very difficult situation.
This brings me to the matter of Indo-China and Thailand. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has now left the Chamber and I was about to refer to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East who are so genuine in their efforts to get the Americans out of Vietnam. It is no good looking at the matter with hindsight. Some five years ago I remember saying in this House, that if America put 1 million troops into Vietnam, she would never win a military victory. But let us not imagine that when American troops go from Vietnam there will be no repercussions. From there the war will go over into Laos, Cambodia and eventually into Thailand.
I am concerned with any obligations that we have to go to the assistance of Thailand. I have asked questions on this matter and have never received a satisfactory answer, except to be told that British troops have helped to build an airfield there. Let us face the fact that if this is so, we should become bogged down there in a war as bad as that being

fought by the Americans in Vietnam and it would be a war that we could never win. I am asking that we should be realistic about our defence plans. Do not let us put troops into areas where they are not wanted and where we cannot reinforce them.
There has been much talk about the Indian Ocean, and I am convinced, with the greatest respect to the Prime Minister, that this is a mere face-saver because the Foreign Secretary at the time of the General Election promised certain things in relation to South Africa. It was unfortunate that he did so. I have no time for the South African regime, though I have many personal friends in South Africa. I know that many of the forces of South Africa are helping to reinforce the rebel regime in Rhodesia and for that reason alone I am not very friendly disposed to South Africa. But to say that by giving them arms that we shall stop Communism coming into South Africa is the opposite to what is actually happening. If we are to win minds in the African countries we must give them their independence and allow them to stand on their own feet. It is no good driving those countries into the arms of the Communists by giving arms to South Africa since by so doing we shall do nothing but worsen the situation.
The Beira patrol was mentioned and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) said that it was costing some £2 million a year. I understand that there is one ship there. What does the hon. Lady want to do with that ship? Does she want to bring it back and put it into mothballs and spend the £2 million somewhere else? The situation will still cost money whatever happens.
I believe that the question of manpower will become worse, for many reasons. One is the fact that fewer people today have contacts with and relatives in the Armed Forces. One of the best recruiting aids to recruiting into the Armed Forces is that somebody in a family has served in the Forces and can advise about Service life.
The word "conscription" has been used. I do not say that the public at large is very hostile to conscription, though politicians seem to think so. Most people who were conscripted into the


Forces look back on the time with some satisfaction. Certainly anyone who was not conscripted says that it is possible to tell those who were conscripted by the different attitudes that they have to life and matters in general. In most cases, there is an improvement. However, that is not why I am against conscription. I am against it because I believe that it does not result in an efficient Army. With all the necessary chopping and changing, with men being sent for training, serving a short time with a unit and then being demobilised, one does not finish up with an efficient Armed Service. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), with whom I disagreed in almost every defence debate when we were in office, for having built up an Army which, having regard to its size, is probably the most efficient in the world today.
Having said that, there is some need to consider the manpower problem at large, and I return to my question about what we should do if we had six or 12 months' warning of some pending operation. I cannot see that we can do other than have substantial reserve forces. People will accuse me of getting back on to my subject of the Territorial Army, and I am. I do not believe that we shall get massive manpower into our Territorial Reserve Forces today for a number of reasons, and it may be necessary to have some call-up into the Reserve Forces in the form of a certain period of training each year so that the force built up as a result could form the home base when the Territorial Army proper went overseas to strengthen those units overseas which required reinforcement.
These are matters which should be looked at by the Government. I have no wish to make party political points in this debate—I have never believed in doing that—but I beg the Government to discard their outmoded ideas of imperial grandeur. We are to have one submarine in the Indian Ocean off Malaysia. I do not know what the intention is. Is it supposed to look for the other 400 Russian submarines in the area? Let us be realistic about these matters. Let us not be persuaded by those who still think that we have an imperialistic rôle to spread our forces too sparsely over the

globe. Let us ensure that the forces that we have are used to the best advantage.
I want to end by reiterating a point that I have made before and one which the hon. Member for Devonport has made again today. Before long, I hope that it will be possible to set up a Committee of this House to consider defence matters. As my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Salford, East say, there is not that much difference between the parties on these matters, and it is unfortunate that from time to time people seek to make party points on subjects which should be above party politics.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) that the Russians do not want to initiate a war in Europe, though I think that the hon. Gentleman failed in his admirable speech to draw the conclusion from that that the main threat at present is outside Europe. This is where I find the official policy of the Opposition difficult to understand. They seem to be saying not that we should do nothing outside Europe but that we should do nothing effective. When they were in office right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, though not necessarily with the assent of all their followers, reaffirmed the Simonstown Agreement, held joint exercises with the South African Navy, and some of them favoured the supply of arms to South Africa. However, we shall be debating that matter tomorrow. The right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) said that he was in favour of competing with the Russians for facilities in Mauritius. When they were in office, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were at pains to assure the nation and our Commonwealth allies about our capacity to reinforce the Far East. In his speech, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister brought out clearly the superiority of the present Administration's method of contributing to the security of the Far East, namely, by taking part in a Five-Power Commonwealth Force.
But whether it be the policy of the party opposite or of Her Majesty's Government, it will in any event be necessary to maintain our lines of communciation with South-East Asia. How are we to


get there in time of trouble? Are we to go Westabout across North America? If not Westabout, shall not we need to be sure of the Persian Gulf? It is with that in mind that some of us tabled the Amendment which appears on the Order Paper but which, I understand, has not been selected.
When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite bowed so shamefully out of Aden, they bowed the Russians in. The hon. Member for Toxteth said that we should not think in imperialist terms, and I agree. He said that the days of British domination are gone, and they have. It is the Russians who are thinking in imperialist terms. It is they who think in terms of domination. The Soviet Union today is as much the master of Egypt as ever Britain was in the days of Cromer or Killearn. The Persian Gulf is a region which was the subject of an intended carve-up between Molotov and Ribbentrop in the days of the alliance between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
Russia waits to dominate the warm waters of the Gulf. The area is one which is intrinsically vital to us, providing, as it does, 60 per cent. of our oil and 75 per cent. of the oil of Western Europe. It is also vital for staging. Today, neither the Sudan nor Libya will give us over-flying rights in real emergency. If we remove our forces from the Gulf, as hon. Gentlemen opposite would like, how shall we stay in Muscat or Masira. After Aden, there was a school of thought which said, "We are out of Aden. We can remain nowhere". There was a school of thought which said, "Aden has gone but, after all, we are in the Gulf. Aden was not worth the bloodshed". However, both schools of thought would unite if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had their way. They would unite to say, "We have evacuated the Gulf, and must quit Muscat and Masira". What then? I suppose that we could have nice naval regattas at Abadan. In any event, it would be imprudent to reduce the strategic options open to the United Kingdom.
Why do we say that we need a certain military presence? It is not to fight the Russians but to forestall a dangerous vacuum, to give stability to an area which is already at risk through infection from South Yemen and the subversive war now being waged in Dhofar—the sort of

operation which both Russia and China conceive it as their mission to support under the title of "war of liberation".
Above all, this is a region of irredentist claims. To take one example, Saudi Arabia commands the Western and Southern parts of the immensely oil-rich state of Abu Dhabi. In 1952 Saudi Arabia occupied and in 1955 was expelled from Buraimi. Saudi Arabia has not accepted the Riyadh line of 1935. In the recent uncertainties I understand that the Iraq Petroleum Company has been compelled to stop drilling in a very important area of Abu Dhabi.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may ask, "Do they want us to be there?" I say that they do. Certainly the Gulf rulers do. One could produce evidence and facts to establish that. What we cannot expect is public statements to that effect. They are not going to stick their necks out to have their heads lopped off after what happened under the last Administration when, with an interval of six weeks, they were told that British forces would remain and then the British forces would not remain. What a victory that was for the Left-wing tail which seems to wag the Labour dog. I know that it would be nothing to them if rulers who are Britain's friends were replaced, perhaps by violence, by military dictatorships like those which elsewhere in the so-called Arab world have destroyed dynasties and Western interests with them. Emirs and sheikhs, the determinists opposite believe, are doomed by history, but the fact is that there has been more genuine social progress in the Middle East under monarchy, in Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, than under the revolutionary juntas in Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad. For the ordinary Arab it is better to be governed by tradition than by terror.
I can understand that the Rulers should have hesitated. No British Minister has visited them—since the extraordinary perambulations of the right hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred.
It is high time—I am very glad at what the Prime Minister said—that it was made perfectly clear that British policy is not made by anyone but by British Ministers, and it is high time that it was realised in the Gulf that there was a General Election last June.


Of course, it is difficult to reverse a policy. I know that hon. Members opposite are quite good at reversing policies, but it is difficult, and I suppose that it is quite natural, in default of any other instructions, to continue working on the directives of abandonment. I am very glad, as the Prime Minister said quite clearly today, that there has been a reversal of Socialist policy.
We are told that if we remain there, if we keep even a modest military presence, we shall become an object of agitation, that we shall be denounced as imperialistic. The hon. Member for Toxteth said just that. It is objected that we shall become an Aunt Sally for such régimes as the Ba'ath in Iraq. We have not been so thus far and the truth is that through history, including recent history, we have made a very small show of force, and we have achieved a great measure of stability with very few troops indeed.
Let no one say we have not got the money. We are spending something like £10 million—is it now? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, was offered the whole cost of a British contribution to the defence of the area, which proved that we were wanted, but he turned it down with contempt. Let no one say we have not the ships. Have we six frigates in the Mozambique Channel or have we one, as the hon. Gentleman suggested? If we have one frigate it seems to me that the Beira patrol is an even more futile farce which should be brought to an end. I hope that we shall hear, when the debate is wound up, that that nonsense is also to be wound up.
We do not need many troops. Of course, it is right that we should try to build up the union of Arab Emirates. I hope that that may be possible, but there is not a hope in hell of building up a union of Arab Emirates unless we are prepared to give it some support, including military support. Of course we should equip and exercise with the Trucial Oman Scouts and other local forces and with the forces of the union, if the union comes about, but what is important, it seems to me, is that, under whatever formula, we do keep troops—a battalion, perhaps, with an armoured car squadron, and a special air

service squadron, training in the mountains—that we just keep that minimum force in continuous circulation in the area.
It would seem to me very strange if, having quite rightly, in my view, incurred considerable odium in deciding to build up the South African Navy to help defend our interests in the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean, we should take such action as would break down the northern perimeter of the Indian Ocean's security. We are asking for a very small premium to be paid to insure an enormous investment. There are very great interests at stake.
We have derived profit from the Gulf. In justice, then, we have a duty to help to keep the peace and security of an area where we have been predominant for more than a century. If we fail in that duty—and we must remember that it will be very easy to get out, but well-nigh impossible to get back again, history may record that those responsible were the new appeasers.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I shall resist the temptation to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). I have had a rather boring week and nothing would revive me more than a good party fight at this time of the night, but it would not fit in with the few remarks I want to make and it would be a departure from the rather statesmanlike attitude I like to bring to these debates.
The first thing I wish to emphasise is that at this late hour there is absolutely nothing more that any back bencher can say at all, because we lack the authority of the Front Bench spokesman who will wind up from this side of the House, and—of course, this we feel so keenly—we lack the information which is available to the spokesman who will wind up for the Government; but the fact that I have nothing whatever to say will not prevent me from saying it.
It may seem rather churlish, since I have been called in this debate, to cast a considerable degree of doubt on the way in which these defence debates are conducted, but I would ask the weighted question whether this is the way in which defence ought to be discussed at all. I remember that when I was on that side of the House, as much then a nuisance


as I intend to be on this side, I supported hon. Gentlemen who were then on this side of the House in a united demand for a Select Committee on defence which would argue about these matters, and discuss these matters, in an atmosphere totally different from that which naturally prevails in this Chamber.
I remember that one hon. Gentleman, lately promoted to glory on that side, sponsored a Motion which many people on this side signed, and I hope that since he is now on the Government side of this Chamber he will revive that Motion and press the noble Lord as hard as he can be pressed.
I think that it is terribly important not that we remove party considerations or legitimate and deeply held differences of opinion from our deliberations about defence, but that we should conduct our arguments, and divide, if necessary, not according to whether we are red or blue, but on different issues. I remember saying in this House on one occasion—and I won the full approval, for the only time in my life, of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for saying it—that there is no such thing as a Socialist frigate and a Conservative frigate, there is no such thing as a Liberal aeroplane or a maverick aeroplane: there are aeroplanes and there are frigates. The arguments about how these are deployed, the arguments about the political objects they are deployed to serve, are matters of legitimate political controversy, and they are best conducted, in my view, when none of us feels it incumbent upon him to prove that the other side has always been right on every single question—or wrong, as the case may be—or has to spend at least half a speech satisfying his Front Bench and his party Whips in trying to prove that the party opposite is a bunch of scoundrels, liars and incompetents.
I am not greatly distressed that the White Paper is not a document to which I can give my wholehearted support. I always found something with which to quarrel in the White Papers produced by the Labour Government. Sometimes it was the grammar; sometimes it was something more fundamental. However, it does not distress me unduly that the White Paper is an unsatisfactory document. I regard it as a transitional document. There will be another White Paper

soon and that, too, will mark out the path of retreat from carefully prepared positions established before the General Election. That will be something which I shall naturally welcome, but not with chortles of party political glee. It will be a welcome sign that the Conservative Party, now in power, are becoming the realists that they proclaimed themselves to be before they came into power.
We have had a strange doctrine proclaimed in recent months: that we in this House and the Government shall make the decisions concerning the deployment of British armed forces and that British interests shall be the sole guide to those decisions. This conflicts with the whole of historical experience. Military decisions have been forced upon this country for over a century, because for well over a century we have not played an aggressive initiating r£le in world affairs.
We did not freely decide to take up arms against the Napoleonic empire. The Napoleonic empire made it impossible for us to refrain from taking up arms. It was so in 1914, and markedly so in 1939. The decision was forced upon us by the German Reich, as it then was, and we had to adjust ourselves to that decision. I find nothing shameful in the historical record or in the fact that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in the next White Paper will begin to adhere to the pattern formed by the historical record. We should recognise that for many years we have not been able to take totally independent decisions in this sphere.
When we look at modern defence problems I think that we have to remove the word "defence" in its narrower sense from the argument. We are now talking about a contribution to security. The hon. Member for Chigwell was talking about a contribution to a form of security in the Gulf and in the Trucial States. The hon. Gentleman was not talking of defence in the way that he would have to talk about defence if my aggressive constituency of Ilkeston invaded his defensive constituency of Chigwell. We have to use different terms, and a contribution to security gives us the correct conceptual framework.
This is why the first emphasis in all our considerations must be Europe. This


is the heartland. If we are not safe in Europe, we cannot do anything anywhere else. Therefore, we have to be safe in Europe.
I wish to pose the kind of question which could be better answered in a specialist committee with specialists serving that committee and providing the kind of information which is not normally exchanged across the Floor of the House in a debate of this kind. The question is: how safe are we? Absolute safety is nowhere to be found and never has been.
We tend to look at N.A.T.O. from our own standpoint, keenly conscious of its deficiencies, knowing quite well that the infrastructure is not all that it should be. that standardisation has hardly got off the ground, and that there is still, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) pointed out, no adequate political machinery attached to it. But remembering all those deficiencies, as all those who study these questions inevitably must, we tend to forget that it is still a pretty formidable force when looked at from the other side of the hill.
I have recently been reading a document prepared by an American adviser to the present Administration discussing some of the problems arising out of a possible security conference. I have been chasing around the building trying to find the document, because I should love to quote from it. Parts of it were reproduced in "Survival", the journal of the Institute of Strategic Studies. I have not the document with me. In fact, I have forgotten the author's name. I normally give credit for ideas which are not my own. That gentleman has been taking a cold look at N.A.T.O., making an effort to look at it from the other side of the hill. When looking at the effective deployable strength of the Warsaw Pact compared with N.A.T.O. he makes certain deflating side calculations which we should constantly have in mind.
The major calculation which he makes is based on the fact that in order to suppress Czechoslovakia the Commander of the Soviet Union, or rather the Warsaw Pact—we know that that is only a euphemism for the Soviet Union and its satellites—had to deploy 300,000 troops —25 divisions. Not all those troops were

in Czechoslovakia. There were subsidiary deployments to take account of possible reverbations moving outward from Prague, but 300,000 troops were deployed to act in a police rôle.
Making allowance for these factors, I believe that we have far more stable societies on our side of the barrier than they have on theirs. Despite their military parades, their monolithic doctrine and their great 6th November demonstrations, we can deflate some of the alarming calculations which we have had about the Warsaw Pact strength. Without playing the numbers game and without in any way contradicting the figures given to the House in yesterday's instalment of the debate, from the standpoint of the C.-in-C. of the Warsaw Pact N.A.T.O. looks far stronger than to those of us in this House who are consistently, and rightly, critics of N.A.T.O. rather than unalloyed admirers and public relations officers.
Another point has to be stressed. We cannot look at the balance of forces in any theatre in a purely arithmetical way. Had we mounted up the arithmetic in most of the conflicts in which we have been engaged, not only should we not have won them, but we should never have embarked upon them. One division commanded by a military genius can knock out four divisions under the overall command of a military idiot. When we take into account all these other factors, I think that N.A.T.O. is not only stronger than we sometimes think, but, more important, that it looks stronger on the other side of the hill than it does to us.
I agree with one word that the Prime Minister used, apart from the necessary platitudes. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "doubt". Deterrence means doubt to a potential enemy. I think that we are now in a position to do what the late Sir Winston Churchill always suggested we form N.A.T.O. to do—namely, that we arm to parley. I think that we can now parley without risk. I think that we are ready to follow the lead given by Chancellor Brandt in the new Ostpolitik. I was delighted to read—I was not able to be present the whole time yesterday—that the Government actively support the Ostpolitik of Chancellor Brandt. It is a probing operation. It surrenders nothing, but at least it tries to establish where we are in Europe and


whether, having confronted and probed for 20-odd years without any success in Western Europe, the Russians are ready to talk about matters of mutual interest. One cannot talk to the Russians about anything else. Once one starts talking ideology, the table goes up in smoke and propaganda slogans start to fly. But one can talk about matters of mutual interest.
Chancellor Brandt has established that they are now ready to talk about some matters of mutual interest and we should be foolish to neglect any opportunity to talk about these matters. But we must never lower our guard while we are trying to have exploratory discussions.
One thing is fairly clear when we try to jump over the other side of the hill. We must never imagine that, because of the impressive array of might which the Soviet Union commands and controls, everything is lovely in their garden. They do not control the Middle East. They have not kicked the Americans out of the Middle East. They have not demolished the military power of Israel, which is a factor of considerable importance in the Eastern Mediterranean and in Middle East affairs.
Israel is not an ally. We do not indulge in sending a vote of thanks to the Israeli army on every victory, but every hon. Member who thinks calmly will be glad that they are there and that they are organised and that they have prevented the opening of the Suez Canal, which would increase Soviet Naval strength in the Mediterranean by a factor of at least five. So there are factors comprised of powers not allied with us, over which we have no control, but we must take them into consideration.
The Russians have made no headway in Europe. There has been no social collapse anywhere in Western Europe of which they can take advantage. Consequently, they may be getting tired and, most important for us, there may be the odd commissar who is beginning to disbelieve his own propaganda, which is the very small beginnings of a little bit of hope.
I read in the German magazine Der Spiegel a lengthy series of articles by Gomulka's former interpreter, who sat in on all the discussions before the invasion of Czechoslovakia. The important

thing which comes from these revelations is, first, that the top leaders in the Communist bloc were divided on this question, and, second—perhaps more important for us—that they were seriously disturbed about its possible repercussions on the structure of the Warsaw Pact.
I do not maintain that we should lower our guard. I do not maintain that the strength of N.A.T.O. should in any way be reduced, or even that the conventional strength of N.A.T.O. is in any way satisfactory, but I would argue that, from the other side of the hill, they see a stronger N.A.T.O. than we do. They look back on a record of continued political failure and perhaps they are now ready to come over a little. It is worthwhile that we should be prepared to meet them and take up seriously, for the first time since the formation of the Warsaw Pact, the question of a possible European security conference and the emergence of permanent machinery from such a conference.
I have said rather a lot for someone who had nothing whatever to say, and I now want to address some stern words to some of my hon. Friends who are not present to hear them. I have heard, as was inevitable, certain disparaging remarks about the future use of sea power. It is necessary to remind ourselves of one fact. Although I am not in favour of covering every Russian fishing boat with a comparable armed British fishing boat, or trying to follow every Russian submarine, some 390 of them, with a N.A.T.O. submarine—that would be an impossible job—we cannot ignore the growing importance of sea power in the world strategic picture.
In many ways, the Cuban confrontation was a kind of dry run for World War III. In fact, if this were a staff college instead of the House of Commons, it would be more convenient to refer to it as World War III, and scale oneself forward to World War IV when we are trying to scare each other to death. The scenario is perfect. One starts with the nuclear sabre rattling and it then gradually comes down. The discussions are very constructive. The decisive factor which ended that confrontation was not so much that President Kennedy was prepared to risk the American cities but that, at the crucial point of the escalation,


he had more conventional naval strength in the Caribbean than the Russians could hope to have.
This is an abstract general point. I am not trying to localise it. I am not about to take a high dive into the Indian Ocean or any other ocean, but I urge every hon. Member to bear in mind that sea power is not extinct or a tiny factor, and that no strategic argument carries any sense at all unless it accepts that, in the conventional field, there must be a growing emphasis on sea power in all its forms.
I do not know what we are expected to do in the party sense about the White Paper. I certainly intend to vote for the Amendment. But since the White Paper is a transitional document, since, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is the kind of document which my own party. when in Government, produced about three years ago, since experience will gradually winkle out the eccentricities in the present Government's defence policy, I am reluctant to vote against the White Paper as a whole unless I hear convincing reasons from my own Front Bench for so doing.
Since oratory obviously has no power to move right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, we have to leave it to experience; outside experience and the facts of international life will eventually promote them to the wisdom which they so badly need at this moment.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) in much of what he has said, and, indeed, much of what his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) said. They have both talked of negotiating from strength and of the need for a strong defence capability and have expressed misgivings about Governments, whatever their political complexion, who consider economising too much on defence expenditure.
I share their feeling that defence should be, so far as possible, a nonpartisan affair. After all, we all live in the same country and we are all proud to call ourselves British. I believe that our interests, whatever party we may

belong to, are much the same when it comes to protecting the freedom and lives of our people.
I would particularly join my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) in her plea for an all-party Committee on defence.
I welcome the Government's measures to make good the deficiencies which exist today in our defences by stepping up the number of frontline fighter squadrons committed to central Europe, in the form of Jaguars, the decision to retain the "Ark Royal" and the decision to step up the Reserve capability in this country.
I also welcome the creation of a five-Power Commonwealth defence force in South-East Asia which, I believe, is well within our capabilities economically and strategically. This decision is welcomed by our friends and allies in South-East Asia and could make a substantial contribution to the maintenance of stability in the area.
The cornerstone of Britain's defences is N.A.T.O. and the key to N.A.T.O. today, as in the last 25 years, is the presence in Europe of United States Forces. It must be the prime aim of any British Government to do all in their power, certainly in the short-term, in view of N.A.T.O.'s complete incapability of facing the Soviet Union without the military might of the United States, to see that the United States commitment in Europe is maintained. The only way we can do this is by showing America that we believe in collective security, that we are prepared to play our part and that we will not leave it to them, as we have done to far too great an extent in the last 25 years.
This can be done by stepping up our effort in Europe, and I therefore welcome the decision of the Government to take action on this front. However, our resources are very limited and I believe that our contribution in certain specific areas outside the European theatre could be of far greater value to our allies, both in Europe and across the Atlantic in the United States than by committing those same forces in Europe. On 8th April, 1963, the Leader of the Opposition told the people of America:
It is one hundred times easier for Britain to remain there"—


he was referring to east of Suez—
even with a token force—than for us, still less the U.S.A., to seek to enter if trouble breaks out.
It is, above all, this aspect of the Government's policy that I wholeheartedly support in that we have been able to establish inside South-East Asia a situation in which we do not have, as we had until recently, an open-ended commitment with no deterrent force planned to be on the spot. We have reversed that situation. We now have a limited commitment, but we have on the spot forces who can act with our allies as a deterrent to any instability that might arise in the area.
If we are able to maintain the United States commitment to Europe by stepping up our contribution, then I believe that Europe will be secure. Nevertheless, we have interests outside Europe, and there are two in particular which are vital to the security and future of this country. The first is the security of our shipping on the high seas, on which the Western countries are far more dependent than are the countries of the Warsaw Pact; this is particularly important in view of the 340 attack submarines which the Soviet Union has deployed in the oceans of the world. This is a factor of which we should take great note.
The second of our vital strategic interests is oil, without which neither our industry nor our defence capability come to nothing. Two-thirds of Western Europe's and British oil supplies come today, and will come for the foreseeable future, from the Gulf. Interference with British or allied shipping on the high seas requires at least an act of war, and hon. Members on both sides are generally agreed as to the unlikelihood in present circumstances of the Soviet Union wanting to risk a war.
However, if the Government were to follow the Labour Government's policies in the Persian Gulf, by sticking to a deadline for pulling British Forces out and the Russians were to gain political control of Britain's and Western Europe's oil supplies, the consequences for this country could be only disastrous. This political control could come about without any act of war whatever.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the Soviet Union was always looking for means of bringing

political pressure to bear. I agree with him 100 per cent. and if I were in the Kremlin tonight and looking at the situation of Britain and the Western Powers throughout the world, I would say that there was no area on which I would place higher priority than to gain political control for the Soviet Union of Western Europe's oil supplies. The possibilities of gaining such control for the Soviet Union could be limitless.
It is said that the Russians will not take over the Persian Gulf. But what if they do? That is the question we must ask ourselves. We have seen what has happened in Egypt; how they have 10,000 Soviet troops there, with fighter squadrons and naval and air bases. We have also seen what has happened in Aden and how quickly they followed us in there. We run the risk of jeopardising our industry and defence capability—indeed, perhaps even our independence as a nation—by risking the possibility of the Soviet Union gaining control of such a vital strategic material.
Many hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to see in yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary confirmation that their policy of withdrawal, in which many of them did not erstwhile believe, is being continued. It does no such thing. It reverses the policies of the Labour Government in the Persian Gulf and perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite have missed the fact that no terminal date has been set for British withdrawal from the Persian Gulf. Indeed, the Government have wisely and deliberately left their options open.

Mr. George Thomson: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the part of the statement of the Foreign Secretary in which he said that Treaties
will cease by the end of 1971".
These are the Treaties on which our operational military presence in the Gulf is based. It is impossible, in the light of his words
will cease by the end of 1971".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1971, Vol. 812, c. 1229.]
to come to other than the conclusion that the Government will follow the timetable for withdrawal laid down by the Labour Government.

Mr. Churchill: That is a somewhat unwarranted assumption. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Foreign


Secretary declared that these particular Treaties would come to an end. But he also made it clear that he was willing to enter into new treaties with the countries in the area and that he is willing to see further contributions of British Forces in a training rôle and a British presence, if that is the wish of those in the area. From having had an opportunity of visiting the area, I know that the great majority of those in power, not only in the Gulf States but even in the neighbouring States, favour Britain remaining—the Government have wisely and deliberately left their options open, and I welcome this. The Gulf has enjoyed a stability, thanks to the presence of British forces, a stability that unfortunately the rest of the Middle East has been denied in recent years.
But the previous Administration's decision to pull out has gone far to jeopardise that stability. Old rivalries and ambitions have been aroused once again. I pay tribute to the fact that they were able to secure at least the removal of one of these ambitions, regarding Iran's claim to Bahrein, but others remain. Iraq has had a long standing claim against Kuwait, and Iran against the two islands of Abu Musa and the Tumbs held by Ras Al Khaimah. The Saudis still have aims and ambitions which they have not forgone against Buraimi in Abu Dhabi. But the greatest threat is the determination of the Soviet Union to gain political control of Western Europe's oil supplies. I earnestly hope that the Government, and the Opposition, will not dwell too long on the difficulties of staying but, rather, concentrate their minds on the dangers of allowing Britain to become another Berlin, an outpost at the mercy of a hostile power for a vital strategic material.
Naval presence in the Gulf is not enough. It is folly to think that this country can engage in gunboat diplomacy with the Soviet Union in this area. No matter how many ships of the Royal Navy we may be able to deploy in the Persian Gulf, the Soviet Union, should it so wish, would be able to deploy ten times as many, especially if the Suez Canal were to be reopened. Such gunboat diplomacy is out of date, although I recognise that the former Secretary of State for Defence under the previous

Administration, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), in some grandiose sabre rattling, once said that he would be able to send the Soviet fleet to the bottom of the Mediterranean within hours.

Hon. Members: Minutes.

Mr. Churchill: Minutes—I beg the right hon. Member's pardon. The only hope of keeping the Soviet Union out is to have a permanent force of British troops, on rotation, training in the Gulf. In addition, we must have at least two secure airfields. I know that this would be welcomed by those in the area.
It is an essential corollary of this that we should give more meaning to the CENTO Alliance and that it British Forces are to stay in the Persian Gulf they should work in very close co-operation not only with the CENTO Powers, especially Iran, but also with Saudi Arabia, so that some effective form of regional self-defence can be built up and that one day we shall be able to leave without leaving a vacuum behind us, which would be the situation if we were to adhere to the previous Administration's timetable for withdrawal.
I have every confidence that the Government will do all that is necessary—nothing more and nothing less is asked of them—to make sure that no hostile power gets a grip on Britain's jugular vein.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Roland Moyle: An advantage of speaking at this late hour is that one has the opportunity of congratulating so many hon. Gentlemen opposite on their courage and tenancity in being determined to prove that the Government are not following the previous Government in their policies of withdrawal from the area east of Suez. Perhaps the louder they shout in that respect the more confident we may be that they lack confidence in the ability of the Government to stay in that part of the world. If they are so confident that the Government intends to deploy British forces east of Suez at strength, why on earth did a number of them go to the length of putting an Amendment to the Government Motion on the Order Paper which welcomes
…the assistance offered to the proposed Union of Arab Emirates in the Gulf but, in


view of the present uncertainties, calls for the continued presence of British forces in an area of major strategic importance to the West.
The only matter on which the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) and I disagree is that there is uncertainty. There is no uncertainty. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have decided, in its essentials and in principle, to follow the defence policy of their predecessors in the area east of Suez, and a frigate and a submarine more or less, for a year or two more or less, makes not a great deal of difference.
I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has left the Chamber.

Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth): He is coming back.

Mr. Moyle: Good. One or two of the things he said indicated that he, in contradistinction to most of his hon. Friends, had been able to remain awake for sufficient periods during the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon to he able to comment with confidence on certain sections of it. That was a refreshing change.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: That cheap comment was not worth coming back to hear.

Mr. Moyle: I thought that I might be doing the hon. Gentleman a service with the leadership of his party. In view of the honesty which he demonstrates on these occasions so regularly, I thought that some sort of push from this side of the House would be very helpful to his future prospects. He raised a number of points in his speech, as did the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), which demand a serious answer from a Government who have misled the party opposite, if not the nation, in the policy which they said they would follow if they won the election last June. We shall look forward to seeing whether the Minister who replies to the debate gives the answers to which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are entitled.
Perhaps I should not have complimented the hon. Gentleman on staying awake during the course of the Prime Minister's speech. What I am about to say may sound a little narcissistic, but those of us who listened to the Prime Minister were touched by the repetition

of his faith that his friends in Europe are militarily interested in areas outside Europe. He has said this before. He said it about three years ago in a defence debate. I thought that by now he had dropped it.
My criticism of the Europeans would be not that they are not interested in the Indian Ocean but that it is incredibly difficult to get many of them interested in areas like the Mediterranean and the Middle East on the one hand and the Arctic Ocean on the other hand. My criticism would be that far too many of them have their eyes fixed on the gap between the Alps and the Baltic. That is politically unwise, but I should have thought that it is militarily unwise also. Nevertheless, it is an example of someone believing what he wants to believe against all evidence to the contrary.
One of the things which I should like to do is to talk about the paper AD70, which is referred to in paragraph 11 of the White Paper. It is not a document which is available to the public, but summaries of the less confidential portions are available in the document known as "Nouvelles Atlantique" or "Atlantic News", as the case may be. It is called "Alliance Study on Defence Problems for the Seventies" and is an excellent summary.
I find very little in that document to disagree with. It starts by saying that the policy of N.A.T.O. should be one of détente and defence. It gives equal emphasis both to the détente and to the defence. However, what we find in the White Paper, which is supposed to be in many ways an interpretation of the Alliance policy as set out in paper AD70, is a fairly brief reference in paragraph 9 to the possibility of East-West negotiation and an even more terse reference in paragraph 10 to the same document. Thereafter, this White Paper is a continual series of commentaries on warlike preparation and the whole balance which we find in the AD70 document between détente and preparations for it, on the one hand, and defence, on the other, is totally lacking in the White Paper.
Particularly for those of us who remember the atmosphere of the 1950s, a study of this document reveals an atmosphere of haunting nostalgia as portrayed by the cold war attitude of the whole of this Government's approach as set out in the White


Paper, which we could well do without. It is obvious that right hon. and hon. Members opposite not only left government in 1964 but also left behind real thought on the problems of the Western Alliance and the problems of Europe.
I turn now to the question of the problems of Europe. It can now be said that there are possible prospects at some time in the not too distant future of a major European conference on the political problems of Europe as they have been with us since the end of the Second World War. I would not want to over-stress this. There is much ground to be covered. There are many problems to be solved. There are many hurdles to be surmounted. However, the map of the course which we must follow can be vaguely discerned.
Again the criticism that I would make of the White Paper is that there is no evidence of any thought by the Government as to how they might start solving some of the problems which will emerge as we approach—I hope—that conference in the future. For example, there is President Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik, which has been referred to several times in the debate. It has been launched and it is making some progress. It has encountered some obstacles, but the possibilities of reaching an agreement should not be ruled out. If an agreement is reached the major obstacle to a European security conference as regards the West German Government will have been removed.
We shall then be faced with the prospect of sitting around a table and talking perhaps to the Russians and their allies. Yet against this background there is only a minimal indication on the part of the Government of the possibilities of the impact of the S.A.L.T. talks, for example, on a European security conference. What are these going to be? I would not expect the Government to have answers at this stage, but I do expect them to have at least asked the questions.
The questions are of some importance. If the strategic arms limitations talks fail, what do we then do? The situation may well be serious. These talks have been talked about almost exclusively in terms of A.B.Ms and M.I.R.Vs, to use the technical jargon. However, there are the Polaris submarines, of which we

have four. What would be the fate of those four Polaris submarines if the strategic arms limitation talks broke down? Do the Government intend to spend large sums of the British taxpayer's money on upgrading those submarines into a more powerful weapon, or are they thinking possibly of winding that aspect of our defence effort up entirely and concentrating on something else?
If the talks succeed—let us assume that an understanding is reached or that a firm agreement results—what will be our position? Will we in Western Europe, for example, be subject to a commonalty of interest in these nuclear matters between the Soviet Union, on the one hand, and America, on the other, which may be detrimental to our interests?
As far as I can see, there is no sign of Government thinking on these very important armament matters, other than from time to time references, which I must admit were far more frequent before the election than they have been since, to an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent. I hope that we shall hear very little of this, not only because the Secretary of State has shown a total inability to defend the concept to the House whenever he has been pressed upon the matter, but also because, if there were such a business, first, the balance of the bargain between us and the French would be in favour of the French. We have masses of technical "know-how" which we would have to put in. The French have very little comparable "know-how" which they can put into the bargain for our benefit.
Even that is a minor argument compared with the fact that France is still outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if we in the House believe, as I hope that we all do, that we can use N.A.T.O. as a system of preparing the approach to a European security conference, there must be no possible deal with the French as long as they remain outside N.A.T.O. I do not think that we can tolerate such an idea.
Apart from the strategic arms limitation talks, there is the question of conventional forces. Now that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have joined my right hon. and hon. Friends in deciding to withdraw from the east of Suez


area, perhaps over a matter of time, the possibilities of saving on the armaments budget boil down to the prospects of what can be saved in Europe.
What can be saved in Europe will depend upon a successful international negotiation. Nothing in this area will be achieved without a successful international negotiation. One of the techniques which has been thought of to achieve a successful international negotiation is the idea of balanced mutual force reductions. No one should get the idea that this will be a simple exercise. It is not a question of one country saying to another, "You break up one of your guns and we will do the same". If security is to be maintained at the same time as balanced mutual force reductions are being made, the exercise becomes much more sophisticated.
A great many problems arise. I have mentioned same of them in the House on previous occasions. An obvious example is that the Russian Army, even at the end of the negotiation, would not be more than about 2,000 land miles from the centre of Europe, whereas there is a grave possibility that the bulk of the American forces might be the other side of the Atlantic. Somehow a formula to balance those two possibilities must be brought in.
Next, the Russians have more divisions in Central Europe than do the Western Powers. Here again, the situation is not simple. It would not be a matter of merely working out a ratio of knocking off two Eastern European divisions for one Western Power division, because N.A.T.O. divisions are, broadly speaking, much larger than Soviet divisions and the divisions of the Warsaw Pact countries. The Russians have more tanks than we have, but our tanks are probably better. We have more anti-tank guns than they have.
These are the sorts of very sophisticated problems that the Governments of the Western Alliance will run into immediately they sit round a table, if they ever reach the conference table, and discuss the question of balanced mutual force reductions. There is no evidence at all that the Government are carrying out any thinking on these subjects. The few examples I have put forward are those from the Labour Government exercise and are at least 12 months old. What

we would like to know and what we are entitled to ask the Government is whether there has been any further thought about the problems involved in this kind of exercise. Is there to be a different balance solution brought to the conference table? All these problems of Ostpolitik, the problems of the S.A.L.T. talks and of mutual balanced force reductions are part of the approach to detente, part of the problems to which, on the evidence of AD70, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is giving deep thought to but which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their White Paper have given no more than the briefest possible lip service.
There has been no preparation at all, as far as I can see, and no thought about these problems. For that reason alone I shall be only too happy to support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Thomson) and to vote against the Motion approving the Defence White Paper. I have not spoken about Northern Ireland at all, and before sitting down I would like only to record my personal thanks for the efforts our troops are making to keep the peace in that very difficult corner of the United Kingdom.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: I am glad to follow the hon. Gentleman in the many interesting and reasonable points he made and also my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) in what he said about the Persian Gulf and the fact that he believes options still to be largely open. I believe this to be so. The negotiations are not yet over; indeed my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said he has the intention possibly of visiting this area very shortly.
I would like to take up one point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), who is not in the Chamber at the present time. He suggested that Greece should be moved out of N.A.T.O. Here I must declare an interest, having been a military attaché in Greece at one time, not a particularly good time. It was the period of Enosis when things were not too friendly. I must stress that Greece is an extremely good ally of ours. Her fighting men are extremely courageous and resolute. It is wrong for members


of N.A.T.O. to attack each other, because we need all the strength N.A.T.O. can give.
I was one of the Members who signed the Amendment which was not called. Certainly, I welcome the Government's continuing interest in the Persian Gulf area and I hope that whatever forces are left there—and we understand some forces will be left there-—will be sufficient to act as a deterrent to any forces of aggression coming in from outside. When one looks at the whole political problem of this area it is very difficult to get a grasp of the whole thing. I see it as three separate problems, each a concentric circle, each larger than the last.
First of all, there is the inner circle of the actual States which border the Persian Gulf itself, the seven Trucial States, Qatar and Bahrain. A certain amount of damage was done there by the irresponsible decision of the Labour Government, but when several hon. Members from both sides of the House went out to visit the area last summer we found everyone in the area still extremely friendly and they wanted Britain to remain. We talked with several Rulers. Some of them said, "We want Britain to be strong in this area. We do not want her to be weak. Do not think all Arabs are your enemies. The Arabs in the Gulf area are certainly your friends".
The next area of widening political interest, the middle circle as it were, are the larger States which surround the area—Iran, Saudia Arabia and Iraq. I believe the damage done by the previous Administration affected this area to a greater extent. All these countries as soon as they heard the announcement that the British Government were to leave this area decided they must carve out areas of political influence for themselves. We have heard there were various claims and threats made in this area. Fortunately, the claim on Bahrain was settled by diplomatic means. But the claim of Iran on the strategic islands at the mouth of the Gulf, Abu Musa and Tumbs, still remain and Iran has threatened to seize these as soon as the British Forces leave.
Then there is Iraq's interest also in these islands and her interest in and

threat to Kuwait. Saudi Arabia on the other side also is interested in the islands at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, and still has claims on Buraimi and Abu-Dhabi.
When we look at the outer circle of the wider political area, we find the brooding presence of Soviet forces in the Indian Ocean area. They are waiting for a vacuum, which will surely be created if British Forces leave. They know very well that it is impossible to have a direct confrontation, but in every case, as they have done before, they wait until the British move out and then move in.
The likely sequence of events, should Britain move out of this area altogether, is that the States in the Gulf will have a comparatively short life. They will gradually crumble. One after the other, they will be taken over by revolutionary régimes, and the Soviet Union will offer aid and help which will be readily accepted. Very shortly after that, the Russians will be in possession of the whole area.
In examining the whole problem we are rather looking through the wrong end of a telescope, looking at the lesser evils and not the greater.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: I can understand the position of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), he having put his name to an Amendment which is critical of the policy announced yesterday afternoon by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, who is one of the senior members of his party, because I found myself in a similar position when I was sitting on the other side of the House. I do not speak harshly to the hon. Gentleman, but I must tell him, and even more the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) his hon. Friend who spoke a little earlier, that they are both clearly mistaken. The language of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, speaking, I presume, for the Cabinet, was quite definite yesterday. I think that the hon. Gentleman has not even the excuse of not having been present when his right hon. Friend spoke.
The matter was put to the right hon. Gentleman quite clearly. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) has the bad habit of addressing us and always


leaving us very soon afterwards, so that it is almost impossible to be courteous to him and refer to him with a smile across the Chamber. We must always criticise him in his absence. But he has another rather better habit, which is that he puts his questions clearly and precisely when he wants to, and yesterday afternoon was one of those occasions when he did want to. He said:
My right hon. Friend has explained what Her Majesty's Government are prepared to do when the union is formed. Can he give us an assurance that until such time as the union is born and is capable of assuming some stability in that vital area the existing British military presence will not be withdrawn?
The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary replied:
The military presence is due to be withdrawn by the end of 1971, but we have sufficient time to form the union. If the union is not formed I shall return to the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1971; Vol. 812, c.1231–32.]
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said; the military presence will be withdrawn by the end of 1971.

Mr. Churchill: Is due to be withdrawn. That does not mean that it will be gone by the end of the year.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman can wrap himself around with dreams, but I must tell him with great respect and, as he knows, profound admiration, that if he does wrap himself around with dreams and not realities he is not following in the family tradition. Realism is important, and I take the statement of Government and Cabinet policy by the responsible senior member of the Government, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and do not even intend to press any further the Minister who is to reply, who has his hands full with all sorts of other problems with which he will have to deal. I accept the statement by the Foreign Secretary as being Her Majesty's Government's policy.
I move from there to the reason why the last Government decided upon this policy. It is also one of the reasons why the present Government are continuing to implement that policy. It lay in the attitude of Iran and other countries in the area which have a very clear policy. It is nonsensical for the United Kingdom, whatever hon. Members on the back benches opposite might think, to pursue

a policy of military presence in the area which is not fully accepted by the surrounding powers. That was the decisive reason why the last Government decided on their policy.
It is not as if the last Government were, as is so often alleged by hon. Members opposite, so eager to withdraw from previous major positions of influence held by the United Kingdom. Many things can be said of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) as Prime Minister, but no one can say that he was over-eager to withdraw from British positions overseas. That was not his policy, as will be conclusively proved when the history of the period comes to be written—and when that comes, I do not mean exclusively the book which my right hon. Friend himself is preparing.
I want to refer to some of the things said by the Prime Minister today. I want in particular to concentrate on his treatment of the proposal for a European security conference. He said a little more than is contained in the White Paper. He was obliged to, and it was high time. Hon. Members opposite tried to laugh this off earlier today, but one of the serious disadvantages from which we suffer is having the Secretary of State for Defence in another place and not in this House, because he is head of one of the main spending Departments of the Government and it is this House which is responsible for raising revenue. [Interruption.] It is no good the Under-Secretary of State muttering. This is a proper constitutional point.
This House is responsible for expenditure and for raising revenue, and it is a constitutional outrage that the Secretary of State for Defence is not a member of it. One of the serious consequences is that he cannot be questioned about the speech he made introducing the White Paper, for which he is responsible, in another place. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this would have fallen foul of constitutional commentators 100 years ago, never mind today. I would suggest that the founder of the Economist would have been more on our side than on his. I make that point because he might be more impressed by that than by me, speaking at the tail end of the debate.


We have heard the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and one of the Under-Secretaries of State for Defence in the debate and we are to hear the Minister of State in reply. We must make do with what we have. It is the duty of right hon. and hon. Members on the Treasury Bench to defend what the Secretary of State said in another place. This afternoon, the Government moved away from the Secretary of State's exaggerated language. The Prime Minister was cooler and rather moderate in his approach. He tried to make good some of the awful impression made by the Secretary of State for Defence. But although he tried, in substance he did not move beyond it. Therefore, I found his contribution on the problem of a European security conference quite inadequate and in no way responsive to the Amendment.
What is at stake here is the possibility of moving towards a European security conference with the purpose of eventually creating a European security system. All this cold war talk that we had from the Minister makes no contribution towards that. Since there are but few Members of the House who read what I write—not more than a quarter of 1 per cent.—I propose to repeat something which I wrote in an article not long ago, published in Tribune, a paper to which I should like to give a little publicity. The article was to do with the problem of the approach to the European security conference.
I pointed out that a security conference which is called for the purpose of putting the stamp of respectability upon the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia would not be worth calling. That is my view today. I say this so that it should be established as common ground that I do not want a security conference if it is not to serve the major purpose for which many of us have worked for ten years or more in many countries of Europe. That purpose must be to discuss European security and to prepare arrangements for further conferences discussing the whole of Europe. It must eventually lead to a dissolution of the two military blocs and their replacement by a European security conference.
As a first step in that direction, because this will obviously take many years, there must be an early agreement on

mutual force reductions. This is the essential ingredient. What the Government ought to do is to send an early and positive response to the Soviet Government and other countries in the Eastern bloc saying that we accept the idea in principle and that we should now go ahead to discuss an agenda.
In doing this they could make use of the helpful proposal made by the Finnish Government who have made it their business to offer Helsinki as a meeting place for the beginnings of a European security conference—call it a preliminary conference or the first meeting of the conference itself. They have put forward certain suggestions which could now be discussed. It is quite wrong for the Government so far to have "cold-shouldered" those proposals.
The argument is then adduced that it is essential to get agreement over Berlin before we can send such a positive response. I do not accept that argument. This must not be confused with the attitude of the West German Chancellor. The proposal of a European security conference addressed to the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and other countries is one thing, the internal political position of the head of the German Government is another. We are not here to decide what the attitude of the German Chancellor is to be; that is his business, the business of his party and his Parliament. I would not presume to give him advice.
My task is to give advice to our Government, and the two must not be confused. The Foreign Secretary always confuses the two and treats them as if they were the same thing. The Prime Minister did so this afternoon. There is a considerable political interest on the part of Herr Brandt to get a reasonable agreement over Berlin before he can recommend to his Parliament in Bonn the ratification of the treaty with the Soviet Union and Poland. As far as we know, he has a very narrow majority. A treaty of that importance would not be very meaningful unless he gets members of other parties outside the S.P.D. to vote for it, just as, if I may be allowed to make this point in passing, a majority of 20 or 30 in favour of entering the Common Market would be meaningless and useless. Unless there is true party agreement on going into the Common


Market, everyone knows that we shall not do so. There must be an overwhelming majority for any such proposition. I do not expect to carry both sides of the House, all my hon. Friends or the Front Benches on this proposition; I just mention it in passing to liven up the debate.
I think that the analogy holds good and that Chancellor Brandt finds himself in precisely that position, but this is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the logical approach and the positive response to proposals from the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries for preliminary meetings on a European security conference, the acceptance of discussions on an agenda. This the Government should do straight away, and we should be pressing them for that. To the extent that I take the Amendment to mean that we are pressing the Government in that direction, I am glad that we put it down. We are criticising them for not doing anything positive in the direction of East-West relations and East-West détente. It is a fair answer to give a positive response, in spite of the reservations which I have expressed and which we must express as a country about the preliminary proposals advanced by the Soviet Union with a limited agenda.
The answer to the proposal is not that because they are proposing to limit the agenda there can be no approach to a conference. The answer is, "Yes, we accept an approach to a conference, but we have an equal right to propose additional items for the agenda". This is what the United Kingdom must do. If we said that only an acceptable agreement over Berlin could open the gateway towards a security conference, we should be handing over a veto power to Herr Ulbrecht, who is the last person I want to have a veto over European security developments.
The Foreign Office knows very well, since its representatives have been present when I have attended international conferences, listening in carefully, that on the subject of a European security conference the voice of Soviet representatives and the voice of East German representatives are not the same. The Soviet Union is far more interested in having a European security conference in the reasonably near future, whereas the representatives of East Germany pay lip-

service to the proposal and immediately say that full international recognition of the D.E.R. must come first; indeed, that is their major aim. To say that unless there is an acceptable settlement over Berlin there will be no approach to a European security conference is to hand over to the East German Government the power of sabotaging for a year and a day a satisfactory settlement over Berlin, thereby making sure that there shall be no European security conference.
We know—certainly the noble Lord knows—that in all the discussions between Poland and West Germany and between the Soviet Union and West Germany the stumbling block has always been East Berlin. The East German Government do not wish the relations between the Federal Republic and the Soviet Union to become too friendly, because they are afraid of being bypassed. This is simply realism and has nothing to do with ideology. The East German Government know very well that the Federal Republic has the Ruhr and all the major industrial assets in the heart of Europe. If there is to be permanent friendship between the Soviet Union and the Federal Republic, East Germany will become less important to the Soviet Union. This they do not wish to see. It is a disastrously mistaken policy for the Government to advance the argument that a Berlin settlement is a sine qua non of an approach to a security conference. They should change their policy and we should press them as strongly as we can to change it.
To the extent that anybody on my side of the House might be echoing the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, they are equally mistaken, and I want to warn them off any such echo—[Laughter.]—I do not take kindly to the amusement of the hon. Members for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). They are both serious characters, and it is unusual to see them so highly amused, particularly as I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Chigwell in dead silence. He should understand that I was doing that not because I thought it was the last word in foreign policy, but merely as a matter of courtesy to him, and he should return it.
I turn to my last point which concerns another item which has been discussed


in the debate. I refer to the position in the Far East—[Interruption.] I am afraid that we must bear with hon. Gentlemen opposite who find it extremely difficult to listen to any speech lasting more than about 12½ minutes. I am trying hard.
The Minister of State and the Government must understand that they are engaged in a game of shadow boxing. It is clear that the position in the Far East does not make possible a very large permanent British military establishment there. The Government have realised that, and they accept it. However, realism between the two sides of the House on these matters requires that there should be some point at which we leave the propaganda game of quoting from each other's speeches. It does not establish a point that one wishes to make to quote a sentence from a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton when he was Prime Minister. Quotation is no substitute for argument. But in this Parliament we have become used to Members of the Government quoting from speeches made by members of the previous Administration, be it on industrial relations, defence or foreign policy. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench seem incapable of composing speeches of their own. If they did not have large chunks of speeches by members of the previous Administration from which to quote, they would have to sit down after only four or five minutes, and that would not do. They cannot live without the speeches made in the past by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I suggest that they should mend their ways.
Looking at the negotiations between, say, Australia and the United States, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise that nothing can be gained by propaganda. In fact what is possible is a very modest contribution. The juggling of figures about which we have heard will not add to our prestige and the confidence of others in us.
We declare our bitter disappointment with the first White Paper that this Government have produced. We declare our bitter opposition to the language of the Minister of State. We declare our profound opposition to the perfunctory way in which relations between East and West have been treated in the White Paper. We

have no confidence in the policy advanced by the Government in the White Paper and the speech of the Minister of State. For that reason, we shall vote against the Motion tonight.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I do not suffer from the difficulties which affect the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). I heartily congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on providing a statement on the Defence Estimates which puts Britain's defence first. It must be harder for those hon. Members opposite who share an ideological affinity with those whose interests are contrary to those of the United Kingdom—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Mendelson: Rubbish.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) is entitled to disagree with me and with my hon. Friends, but he is not entitled to say what he has just said, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Wilkinson: No. It is not for me to make distinctions between the relative degrees of Socialism. I cannot do that. All that I will say is that I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman said what he did with sincerity and on behalf of his constituents—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Allaun: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that I am sincere or insincere or that Socialism is not in keeping with the interests of this nation, but I ask him to withdraw what he has just said about myself and my hon. Friends.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris): There is no point of order for me. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman said falls into the category which would justify the Chair asking for a withdrawal. It should be a matter between hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I must leave it at that.

Mr. Allaun: Further to that point of order. What the hon. Gentleman said was tantamount to saying that we were acting in a way contrary to the interests


of this nation. It is that which I am suggesting is not permissible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think the situation is quite as the hon. Gentleman puts it. It might possibly be considered that way in a debate such as this, but it might also be felt in other debates to be quite normal.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I was not involved in what the hon. Gentleman said, but two of my hon. Friends were. It would be within the recollection of the House that what the hon. Gentleman said was an imputation on the motives of my two hon. Friends. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are in any doubt as to what was said, you should ask for a transcript of the hon. Gentleman's words so that he should be given the opportunity to withdraw the imputation on the reputation of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said and I feel that it is a matter which, with great confidence, I must leave with him.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I answer the hon. Gentleman? This is a serious point. What I was saying in good faith was that I regretted the suggestion that we should so hugely limit our defence expenditure so as to incur a cut of some 2½ per cent. of gross national product expended. As for the hon. Member for Penistone—

Mr. Mendelson: I make no complaint about what the hon. Gentleman said. What he said is of no importance.

Mr. Wilkinson: There were three main points in the White Paper. The most important is the section on improving the capabilities of the Armed Forces; the second is how they are to overcome manpower difficulties; and the third is how they are to enhance their rôle in the community.
One aspect of our defence planning which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), and also by the Minister of State, is that of the nuclear hypothesis in an era of nuclear stalemate, when there is an overwhelming preponderance of conventional forces on the side of the Warsaw Pact countries and the Soviet Union. I agree with the hon. Member

for Toxteth that our reserve capacity needs augmentation. On this matter the White Paper gives ground for hope. We are getting a sizeable increase of our Army reserves, which is admirable.
The sentiments expressed in the White Paper are also worthy of note when Chapter 3 begins by saying
The significance of the reserve forces extends far beyond their essential military role.
It is not just the fact that if we want to be able to meet a small incursion or a minor risk of escalation with an appropriate response we wish to have appropriate conventional capacities to do so, but also that we want to be able to face the more alarming possibility of prolonged conflict without resort to the nuclear weapon. There is no way of doing that without adequate reserves.
I suggest that no two arms in the reserve forces are more important than the naval and air arms. I am delighted that the Territorials are to have their strength augmented, but it is a fact that the most complicated and technically sophisticated military tasks are performed by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. The training is much longer, the degree of expertise is of a far higher technical calibre, on the whole. Therefore, there will be a very great gap in our capability unless we can expand our reserve naval and air elements. Although I welcome wholeheartedly the additions which we have made to our conventional strength—the extra aircraft carrier, which is admirable, and the extra Jaguar squadrons, which can be dispersed because it does not have to operate on hardened airfields but can operate from a cricket pitch or at any rate a big football field, which is a far better concept than the hardening of static airfields.
Our conventional capacity is already being increased, but we should look at the augmentation of the naval and air side. We have eleven minesweepers—have we not?—which the Royal Naval Reserve disposes of. That is a very fine, worthy force of some 6,000 men. The Royal Air Force, however, has a mere single paragraph in this Paper, and that is an extraordinary state of affairs when we note what the Israeli Air Force is capable of. In that country, as an Air Reservist one probably goes to work to the office in the morning, at noon


straps a Skybolt to one's back, flies a mission in the afternoon, and comes home to tea. If anyone tells me that that is not a professional air force I can only say that he is making a grave mistake.
I turn to what the Secretary of State said in the other place on 24th February when he pointed out that 52 per cent. of our defence expenditure goes on pay and allowances. If we look at the projections of that expenditure—and I am glad that they are only targets and not fixed ceilings—we find that, as manpower costs rise to compete with industry, and as weapon costs escalate, we shall face an extremely difficult situation.
I suggest that what might have appeared a flippant suggestion is not so flippant at all. The Swiss operate what is very much a citizen force, and if anyone were to say it is not possible for such a force to operate professionally in those circumstances, I would point out that the Air National Guard in the United States operates supersonic aircraft and has 92 flying squadrons with 1,800 aircraft of which 13 tactical fighter and reconnaissance units were called up for service in Vietnam operationally and showed themselves perfectly professional and capable of carrying out the job.
What I am trying to get across is that for the longer term, if we want not to reduce equipment programmes or drastically to cut back on Regular manpower, we have to increase our reserve capability, not just because it gives us the option not to invoke nuclear retaliation at an early stage of hostilities in Europe but also because it will bring defence expenditure to a reasonable proportion of the Budget, a proportion which this country can tolerate in the longer term. I believe that these are most important matters.
Lastly I must emphasise that this would greatly improve recruiting. There is far too little contact between the ever-shrinking Services and the civilian population. That is a healthy thing for neither. Another thing which would help recruiting and which I would mention in the last minute and a half I have is this: it has been emphasised that education takes up an increasing proportion of the time span when a potential Serviceman can be of use to the Armed Forces. I

suggest that the creation of an inter-Service cadet college at Greenwich where cadets of all three Services could do an academic year in imposing surroundings in the public eye, before they dispersed to their respective professional academies for specialised training, would be an admirable thing. I am not decrying the university cadet scheme or financial inducements to bring people into the Services from there. All that is admirable, but I think it would be also helpful to have this joint cadet college, for it would be valuable for morale and for the standing of the Armed Forces in the community.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: Had I known that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) would have begun in such an intemperate way, I would not perhaps have been so generous in giving him time to speak. I am not sure whether I could do a mission from Aberavon in the afternoon and get home for tea.
I want, first, to pay tribute, as many hon. Members have, to our troops in Northern Ireland. We have in Northern Ireland nine major units—it is right that the House should get the issue in perspective regarding our commitment there—comprising 5,000 infantrymen, which compares with just over 9,000 in the whole of B.A.O.R. today.
Our troops in Northern Ireland perform a difficult and unpleasant task. Indeed, any assistance in aid of the civil power is bound to be difficult, because it taxes the resources, the ingenuity and, indeed, the patience of every fighting unit. When heaped upon this is the growing hostility of a small number of the population, as was inevitable over the months, then the task becomes doubly difficult.
It is hardly credible that in 1970, almost on the doorstep of the Palace of Westminster, British troops should for such a long time be engaged in a task of this nature—and how well they do it.
I join in sending good wishes to the troops who are performing this task. It would not come amiss for me to mention also the families of the troops in all parts of the United Kingdom, sensing perhaps a little of their anxieties as they watch television weekend after weekend and see their menfolk going about their


tasks. It has never been easy historically from this side of the water to understand, let alone to solve, the problems of Northern Ireland. But in the drive to restore normality in Northern Ireland, perhaps it would not come amiss for me at this stage in the debate gently to remind those who might be minded to throw the next petrol bomb or to set the next booby trap to think a little about the families of the boys who are keeping the peace and doing the job so well. I am sure that the whole House sends its good wishes to our troops in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about accommodation. I welcome the additional accommodation which will be provided. This will lessen a little of the separation from their families of the troops in Northern Ireland.
I ask the same question as was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid): what effect has service in Northern Ireland had on re-engagement? I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell us about ithat.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to 5,000 infantrymen, does he mean literally five battalions of 1,000 infantrymen each, or does that include the armoured car units, the gunners, and the like? What is the situation regarding brigade and division?

Mr. Morris: I have contracted my speech. I said that in Northern Ireland there are nine major units comprising 5,000 men acting as infantrymen. Of the 53,000 total troops in B.A.O.R. there are just over 9,000 infantrymen. I stress that point. It is a comparison of these two sectors of the British Army. I have cut down my speech, but I am trying to go through a great deal.
Like other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, I have read the White Paper in conjunction with the statement which was made in October. The first question which crossed my mind was why the Government bothered to bring out this White Paper if they produced all the goodies they had and put them in the window at the behest of the

faithful in the statement which they made in October. It reminded me of the statement by the late Aneurin Bevan about the Budget: that it was a relic of a peasant economy; there had to be a sowing in the spring and an expectation of a harvest in the autumn. I suppose that because the predecessors of the present Administration had brought out White Papers in the spring they thought it was the decent thing to do. But they give us no new information.
What was odd and significant was that the first piece of new information, the contribution to the European Defence Improvement Programme, was dished out in a paragraph in a Press release from the Secretary of State. Then yesterday we had the latest political somersault from the Government in the statement on the Gulf. It is odd that this empty and bogus White Paper could not have contained a reference to that political somersault.
The October White Paper can be underlined in four parts. There would, first, be some kind of commitment in the Far East, second, the "Ark Royal" would continue its functions as a carrier, third, there would be an increase in TAVR, and, fourth, some Jaguars would be diverted from training. That is hardly something to excite the colonels in Cheltenham or the admirals in Hampshire. Any student of defence, having regard to the new expectations of our friends and allies set out in these White Papers, would have expected at least some new money to back them with.
One remembers the critical, indeed almost hysterical, Motions which we had every year on the Labour White Papers from the other side of the House. Let me remind the House of some of these. In 1970, the Opposition moved to deplore the policies of the Government
… which involve a continuing reduction in the effectiveness of our defence forces, to the detriment of national security, interests and commitments.
The same in 1969. The same in 1968.
The champion of the Opposition then was the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). That was when he was a shadow, before he sought the limelight. He condemned the Labour Government for having
… undermined the confidence both of the Services and of our friends and allies and seriously weakened the defence capability of this country.


If, according to the Conservative manifesto "A Better Tomorrow"—or is it "A Better Day After Tomorrow"?—these were the years that the locusts have eaten, one might have expected, as I am sure the faithful opposite expected, some radical change of policy, some massive infusion of new funds.
But do they find it? The assumptions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when he referred to N.A.T.O. and our r½le in N.A.T.O. in his last White Paper. He said:
At present, the level of these conventional forces is just sufficient for this purpose, though there is a need for improvements in quality and equipment.
That was his analysis in the White Paper on which hon. Members opposite moved an Amendment and against which they voted in the Lobby. Despite this, my right hon. Friend's conclusions have been endorsed by the Secretary of State as recently as the last debate in the other place, when he said that the assessment of his predecessor still applied 12 months later.
If our provision was so bad, if the Amendments of the present Government year after year were right, if our period in office could be likened to a sort of Old Testament six lean years, then one might have expected some radical change, if the Opposition then were not totally "phoney". We might have expected new plans, real commitments and real money to back them with. If our order of priorities was wrong—I take great pride in the fact that it was such that for the first time in our history we spent more on education than on defence—then the least the faithful opposite might have expected was some small infusion of new money. But they find that the present White Paper, word for word, goes along with our Defence White Paper in money terms. Indeed, they are adding insult to injury by increasing the expectations of our friends in the Far East. The basic Conservative defence posture, as hon. Gentlemen opposite who study defence know, is that there is the same money in the Defence White Paper, plus this Far East commitment.
But they go one better. They claim now that they are spending less than us on defence. They say that they will be spending less than the targets that we set

and that their aims over the next four years will involve substantial savings on previous plans, making a major contribution to the Government's expenditure programme. It cannot bring heart to hon. Gentlemen opposite to be told that spending is £1 million below even the October target.
As for there being not much damage to our rôle in N.A.T.O., if one accepts the endorsement of the Secretary of State and the figures of the Government, it seems that we will not have much wherewithal to put anything right anywhere. It is odd that I must remind the House of the statement which was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the Tory Party's "Campaign Guide". He said:
We do not pretend to think we can provide adequate defence on the cheap. We are prepared to pay the price to secure our interests and fulfil our commitments.
Now the proud aim of the Conservative Party is not that they are spending the same as us but that they will spend less.
Let us consider the Far East. We understand that between £5 million and £10 million is the assessment of the extra cost of this new presence. I find this impossible to reconcile with the statement of the Prime Minister of 18th January of last year, when he said:
Well, I am not going to tie myself down"—
Who can tie the right hon. Gentleman down? Certainly the Gulf enthusiasts on the benches opposite cannot tie him down
to ten plus or minus —100 million".
Perhaps he was anticipating decimalisation or, like Lord Randolph Churchill last century, was having difficulty with "those damned dots".

Lord Balniel: rose—

Mr. Morris: I will not give way.

Lord Balniel: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Morris: I have reduced the length of my speech considerably. In any event, the noble Lord did not give way to me during his speech yesterday.
If I am wrong in my assessment, then let us consider equipment and manpower.


First, take Polaris submarines, to which the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) referred. The cost refers to the same number of boats. Indeed, Ministers tend to get indignant when I ask whether or not the Government intend to build a fifth Polaris submarine. Their answer is that the Government are keeping their options open.
That might well be their answer. It is the least their supporters expect from them. If they were to be so foolish as to build a fifth Polaris submarine, from where would they get the money? Is it in their targets and costings? Have they provided for it? When will they come clean and tell the House of their intentions in this matter?
Then we must consider the nuclear powered submarines, the Hunter/Killers. Where is the restoration of the cuts for which we were strongly attacked time and again? The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham said that the Conservatives would undertake to restore the Hunter/Killer programme. I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite and their supporters, particularly in Birkenhead, expected that undertaking to be carried out. Last night, however, we had this statement of the Under-Secretary of State:
I am not my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham.
He was right about that.
and I am not saddled with anything he said in opposition".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1971; Vol. 812, c. 1352.]
I am not an expert on saddling, but when he goes into the Government paddock tonight I hope that he and his right hon. and learned Friend do not nobble each other unduly.
When he spoke last night the Under-Secretary did not answer any of the questions that had been asked about ships and equipment. I hope that when he speaks tonight the Minister of State will answer at least some of them, and particularly those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Last night the Minister sheltered behind the long gestation period for equipment. He told us about the inheritance he had received. If the Government believe that we were wholly wrong and have not provided the money, if the fruits of any gestation period can-

not be seen, perhaps we might have expected from the Government a new conception. But there is not a single instance in the White Paper of any change of plan or any innovation as regards any piece of equipment, save one which I shall come to later.
The subject of the purchase of Exocet has been raised. I think it was in October or July that the Minister proudly told us that the Government had decided to buy Exocet from the French. He wanted this to be regarded as a new and exciting piece of policy, a change of plan by the Government, and he wanted all the credit for his Administration. When I questioned whether he knew of the part played by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr David Owen) and myself in encouraging both navies and the scientists to get together to see whether this piece of equipment was worth while, he stoutly denied that we had had a rôle in it. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not get too excited about this either, especially the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), who criticised me so strongly every time there was a purchase of any weapons.
On Army equipment, I shall not weary the House with the catalogue of ironmongery. Which we had last night. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Lambton), who had to go through the equipment line by line. I shall not do that. When one looks at all the items, the Chieftain, the Rapier, Swingfire, the arming of the helicopter, the new sights, better ammunition, one after another, I cannot see one brainwave, one innovation or one dramatic change of policy of which I did not know or participate in when I had a small hand in the Ministry of Defence, unless—and this may bring a cheer to hon. Members opposite—there is an omission which has not caught my eye.
I concede that there is a slight change regarding the Air Force, that there may be some Jaguars diverted from training. That may bring a cheer from hon. Members opposite. But as we were told in October, they come from the total purchase of Jaguars. There will not be a net increase.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for forgetting the "Ark Royal", also mentioned


today. The continuation of the "Ark Royal" as a carrier is one of the biggest albatrosses round the necks of hon. Members opposite. As the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) asked, does a carrier fleet of one make sense? What happens when there is a refitting? Or what happens when it has necessarily to go into port? If its rôle as a carrier is so vital, can it be spared on those occasions, which go on month after month and in some cases more than a year? If it can be, I ask a question which was asked during the war: is its journey, as a carrier, really necessary?
Perhaps hon. Members opposite should look at the small print. The aircraft will be provided from those totally planned, and fixed wing flying recruitment will not be reopened. Recruitment is the biggest problem of all, as the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said. We respect him in all matters concerning defence, although we do not always agree with him.
The Secretary of State said that Service morale is not, and rightly not, a party political issue. But he went on to attack the Labour Government for having caused, the recruiting problem. The trends to improvements in the last few months owe a great deal to the inception of the concept of the military salary by my right hon. Friend, and on 1st April Servicemen will receive their final allocation of this salary.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to keep politics out of this, perhaps the words used in their campaign guide about the military salary would not have been used. They said that so far few good words have been said about this concept. If the proposition is so bad, what proposals have they got? What carrots—what new inducements—have they got for Servicemen? They have none. They have no ideas or suggestions. All we have from the Government are these fine words—that the Government
firmly believes that its intention to restore the Armed Forces to their rightful place in the life of the nation and to keep defence in the front rank of its priorities will in itself provide a direct encouragement to recruitment.
Is that enough? Or is, perhaps, growing unemployment from Scotland to Wales to be the not so secret weapon of the Government?
I referred in my opening remarks to the keeping of the peace by the troops. It was odd and sad that in his speech in another place the Secretary of State stressed the dangers and the rôle that Britain must play but said not one word about disarmament. The Secretary of State frivolously dismissed the suggestion that it would have been proper for him to have mentioned the question of disarmament. Today the Prime Minister sought to repair some of the damage, but he is the same person who last year complained that the Foreign Secretary was not taking part in our defence debate. This year neither the Foreign Secretary nor the Secretary of State for Defence—who is well removed from any danger of being questioned in this House—is taking part.
What was odd about the Prime Minister's anodyne speech this afternoon was that he ignored the critical Amendment tabled by 12 of his hon. Friends as regards the policy of withdrawal from the Gulf, as if that Amendment did not exist. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) claimed that the Government were not committed to withdrawal at the end of 1971; it would not happen. If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything and I wonder whether his assessment is right or whether the concern of the 12 hon. Members opposite as expressed in the Amendment is not accurate.
I am sure that it was with shock and dismay that those hon. Members heard the Foreign Secretary's statement yesterday. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I congratulate the Government on their wisdom at the eleventh hour, at almost five to 12, in announcing their change of policy. Let all hon. Members be quite clear about this. It means that Labour's policy of withdrawal of operational troops from the Gulf by 1971 will continue and will take effect and that all these offers of help, which are not far different from the offers of help which were set out in the 1969 White Paper, are contingent on the wishes of the Rulers.
The reality of the situation is that at the end of the year the operational troops will be out and the Treaty will come to an end. The Government's policy on the Gulf is standing on its head. At one stroke, if I may coin a phrase, they


have destroyed their credibility in foreign affairs. If the dangers, whether from the strategic and military point or from the political point, are so serious, we wonder at the Government's strange order of priorities, in that they withdraw from the Gulf but decide to supply ironmongery in small doses to South Africa. This is a very odd and unusual assessment and we doubt whether this assessment of the military danger in the Indian Ocean is shared by many other countries.
I shall not anticipate tomorrow night's debate on South Africa. I am reminded of the words in the White Paper that
The Soviet Union will be competing with the efforts of China to extend her political influence among the developing nations.
This is a recognition that there is a fight for the hearts and minds of peoples. Whatever protestations the Government may make about apartheid—I do not dispute them—if arms are supplied to South Africa, we in Great Britain will be guilty by association. Therefore I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in favour of the Amendment we have put down and against the Government White Paper because it is a bogus White Paper, a "phoney" White Paper and additionally it will give the whole House the opportunity of testing those 12 hon. Members who have put down this critical Motion on the Order Paper tonight.

9.36 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): With the permission of the House I will try to answer some of the points which have been raised in the two days' debate, although the number of speeches makes it a fairly daunting task. First of all, we have listened to a speech of superb Celtic imagery and mixed metaphor from the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris). We have heard about the faithful, about the years the locusts have eaten, about sowing in the spring and harvesting in the autumn, about the Old Testament's six lean years; and I am bound to say, having listened to the right hon. Gentleman, that I cannot help feeling that the best parts of his speech were the innumerable quotations from the Conservative campaign guide of the last election.
It has, I feel, been a very constructive two days' debate, albeit an exceedingly

sombre one in the light of the speeches that have been made. Many suggestions have been put forward, and if I cannot answer them in debate, I can assure the hon. Members concerned that the Government will be considering the points which were put forward. Equally, alternative policies have been developed by the Opposition with—apart from a few exceptions—eloquence and moderation.
I undertook to answer specifically the points which were made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in yesterday's debate. He asked whether there could be a debate on the Select Committee Report on Defence Research Establishments. I personally, and all those associated with the Defence Ministry, would certainly welcome such a debate, but he will know that this matter has been referred to by the Leader of the House who said that he understood the importance of the subject and that there may well be an opportunity for this to be debated when Select Committee Reports are debated. He could not, however, give a commitment at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the supply of computers to the Soviet Union. The Prime Minister raised this matter personally with President Nixon last December. The question of the sale of certain I.C.L. computers to the Soviet Institute of High Energy Physics at Serpukhov was discussed. This institute is concerned only with peaceful scientific research, although the computers in question are powerful enough to fall for consideration within the international agreements to which we are party. The discussions are still continuing between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America.
The hon. Gentleman indicated that he felt that multi-national companies based in the U.S.A. and having resources in Britain were at a disadvantage compared with British-owned companies which deal with Eastern European and Soviet markets. Following the U.S. Export Administration Act, 1969, the United States has freed the foreign subsidiaries of nationally based concerns from U.S. internal control regulations. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question but it is a complex one and if he wishes to raise further points I shall be


happy to try to answer them in correspondence.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: That is a great help.

Lord Balniel: During the debate many questions were raised on the subject of manpower. In particular, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) discussed the possibility of the integration of noncombatant support units. This enables me to turn to the subject of improvements in the organisation of headquarters and support functions.
We have decided to replace the various command headquarters in this country next year by a single Headquarters United Kingdom Land Forces. The number of district headquarters will be reduced from twelve to ten. These changes will not only improve efficiency but will save about 1,000 civilian and 250 military posts. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) referred to the effect of the decision on Chester. We are aware of the problem of local employment and are considering an alternative Army unit which could be located there and which would employ a good proportion of those now employed in Western Command.
The Headquarters Organisation Committee is examining the structure and methods of working of the Ministry of Defence itself. A number of recommendations are referred to in the White Paper. Our purpose in the examination of the Ministry of Defence is to seek to reduce the tail of the Services to the absolute minimum, so that as much as possible of the available resources will be available to the teeth. A good deal has been done already to rationalise the Services' supply system by making one Service responsible for particular support functions, along the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth.
Overall, the number of Ministry of Defence civilian employees will have been cut by nearly 90,000 since the early 1960s. Some 35,000 are United Kingdom staff, and the rest are local employees

overseas. Much of this is a reflection of the rundown of the Armed Services, but as this is a constant source of criticism within the Services I should mention that civilian reductions have more than kept pace with the reductions in Service manpower.
The last Government planned to reduce civilian numbers by a further 23,000 by 1974. We shall do better than that. The 1971–72 slice is 16,000. However, as this has been mentioned in the debate frequently, I must avoid creating any impression that there is a sharp contrast in defence between the civilians who form the tail and the Armed Forces who form the teeth. Many Service men perform support functions, and many of the Ministry of Defence civilians are very far from being what we might describe as pen-pushers and members of a bureaucracy.
In our counting of civilians are people who work in the Royal Ordnance factories, the research and development establishments and the Royal dockyards. As an example of the problem which can be caused by confusing civilians with armed personnel, I should mention that half the force which supports the Polaris system is civilian and the other half is armed personnel.
The point I am making is that a reduction in the bureaucracy is of crucial importance, but the reduction of civilian personnel is not an end in itself. One of the problems is that we are actively civilianising the Armed Forces in order to relieve the burden on the military manpower.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lord Balniel: I would much rather not.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: One bureaucratic mistake that has been made is that free travel warrants are being issued to Service men by the shortest instead of the quickest route. This is a small but important matter to Service men on short weekend leave. My hon. Friend could put it right tomorrow with one flick of the wrist. Will he do so?

Lord Balniel: I will examine the point by the shortest and quickest method I can and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend on the subject tomorrow.


Virtually every speaker in the debate has referred to the problem of manpower. I should like to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder) said, that trends of employment and unemployment do not affect the recruiting position of the Services in any large measure. My hon. Friend criticised some of the advertising. We are always willing to seek advice, but my impression is that the advertising is fairly good. The most successful advertising photograph which has appeared, which resulted in the maximum number of recruits, was a picture of a perfectly enchanting girl—and this, I think, will help the point which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned about improving the woman power.
I believe that the problem of manpower is one to which there is no single solution. We cannot make life in the Service in every way comparable with civilian life—and indeed we do not want to. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) said that we need men who are committed and dedicated with a very strong sense of patriotism and a sense of purpose. Men in the Services are stretched to the limits of their courage and endurance and have to take on tasks which are unpleasant and dangerous. Indeed, it is this challenge which attracts the kind of men we want.
I think that, in voluntary professional forces, we want to move to a Service which is difficult to get into because of the high professional standard and easier to leave. It is for that reason that we have, for instance, extended the four-year break point to all non-apprentice branches of the Royal Navy, so that men need not commit themselves for very long periods of service. We have accepted the same principle in adopting the Donaldson Committee's recommendations with only a minor modification. On 1st April next, all who join the Services—Army, Navy and Air Force—under the age of 17½ will be able, when they reach the age of 18, to shorten their engagement if they so wish. It seemed to us and to the Committee unacceptable that young people should enter into long-term commitments and not have the chance of thinking again.

Mr. Frank Allaun: And the Navy?

Lord Balniel: And the Navy. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in the point he made. I will not elaborate on it now, but he was mistaken.
I turn to the wider issues of the debate. A number of speakers have covered the ground very thoroughly in discussing the Government's policy in the Gulf. This is an important policy decision and it is right that the House should inquire closely into our interests in the area. These interests, of course, are not confined to the nine Gulf States on which debate has naturally centred. There are our large interests elsewhere which require good relations and continued co-operation with other countries in the area. I am thinking of Saudi Arabia and also of Iran, our partner in CENTO, to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West also referred.
Aircraft will continue to be based in the Mediterranean declared to CENTO. The CENTO route to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) referred will continue to be of great importance for our communications to the Far East. So also will be the airfields at Gan and Masirah and the staging rights in Bahrein which we should wish to use.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are wrong in their claim that what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced is the same as their policy. They decided unilaterally to set a date for withdrawal. We in opposition on several occasions said that a continuing British presence in the Gulf would depend on the views and wishes of the local Rulers. In our manifesto, we said that we would hold talks with the leaders in the Gulf. Our promise has been fulfilled and the policy which we have announced is, in our consideration, the best way of forming new and stable relationships in the area in the new situation. I do not regret for a moment that the Government have taken some time, as the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) seemed to criticise, to examine these issues. Many Governments were involved and it was right to ensure that the views of all the Governments concerned were taken into account.
Some hon. Members fear that the proposed alteration in our defence arrangements will leave a vacuum which the Russians will promptly fill. This fact


underscores the importance of the Government's offer of continuing assistance M the building-up and training of local forces. I emphasise that these are offers at this stage, not solutions to be imposed on the Rulers, who are moving towards a new status of independence and self-reliance. If they are accepted, the British forces will be in the Gulf in a training and liaison r½le. These continuing elements of British forces could include, for example, the Royal Engineers to help, as they have done before, with construction activities in the area as well as with training.
There would be regular visits by the Royal Navy, there would be regular exercises of Army units up to company or even battalion level if the Rulers so wished. There could also be visits by aircraft for training purposes and there could be officers and men on loan to the local forces, particularly the Trucial Oman Scouts in their new r½le.
What we are working towards is a greater self-reliance on the part of the local States. A military contribution of the kind I have described could exercise considerable influence on the situation in the area. My impression is that this emphasis on the opportunities of training and liaison in this area commands the general support of the House as a whole.
I turn to that part of the Opposition Amendment which claims that we are over-stretching the forces by placing on them additional and unnecessary tasks East of Suez. Like the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher), I do not accuse the Opposition of being scoundrels, rogues or liars. I just disagree with them. I do so on both counts of the Amendment. First, the reference to additional tasks can refer only to our intention to contribute forces to the Five Power arrangements. Our contribution is limited in size but of great value in complementing the resources of the other four Powers. It has been warmly welcomed by those four Powers in the Far East.
We have said in the White Paper that our interests and responsibilities cannot be confined to N.A.T.O. We feel it wrong and mistaken in defence terms to draw a hard-and-fast line between the geographical area of N.A.T.O. and areas

outside Europe. Anyone who wished to read a reasoned argument on this should read the admirable speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). Right hon. Gentlemen opposite say that these are additional tasks, but our ships and aircraft would be carrying out tasks just as demanding whether they were stationed in the Atlantic, the North Sea, the Indian Ocean or the Gulf.
I think that hon. Members opposite are specifically referring to our decision to station land forces in the Singapore-Malaysia area. Again, I have to remind them that the defence of the area is a task which will be shared by the Singaporeans and the Malaysians, who are building up their own defences. In addition, the commitment is of a consultative nature.
We do not know what the Labour Administration intended to offer in place of the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement. What we do know is that the last Administration said that they would deploy troops from here to the Far East within the general capability based in Europe. When we returned to office they were running an exceedingly large reinforcement exercise to prove this very point. In the last Defence White Paper they went out of their way to say that they would continue to train forces of all British Services in the Far East after 1971. I appreciate the anxiety expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and the right hon. Member for Dundee, East that our forces stationed in South-East Asia could get sucked into an internal security situation. However, the defence arrangements which we and our Commonwealth partners are planning together will be concerned with the external defence of Malaysia and Singapore. They will not be concerned with internal subversion or security. That is the responsibility of the local Governments and it is not ours.
I would say to those who fear that our troops could possibly be embroiled in a serious local situation created by internal subversion that what we contemplate, and what we shall be discussing with the Ministers who will be coming to London next month, is an arrangement which will involve all five Governments in an equal commitment to consult together if any external threat developed.


This would mean that all five Governments would need to decide in consultation whether a particular situation related to external defence or was an internal matter for the local Governments. One cannot conceivably be precise about such a situation in advance. The immediate need in the Far East is to establish a visible and vigorous arrangement for co-operation in defence which will serve as a general deterrent, which will promote confidence and which will cement the defence arrangements which exist in that area.
It ill becomes hon. Gentlemen opposite to claim that this defence effort which we are making is, to quote their word, "unnecessary". So far they have never defended their withdrawal from the Far East on the grounds that it was strategically necessary. The defence they have always advanced is the defence which they put forward immediately following devalution in the debate on the cuts in public expenditure, that it was economically necessary. Never before have they said that defence in that area was unnecessary.
I will turn briefly to the last part of the Amendment on the question of détente and disarmament. I waited throughout the entire debate to hear one constructive suggestion put forward by

hon. Gentlemen opposite of a step towards détente, disarmament or arms control where they were prepared to negotiate and we were not prepared to negotiate. The only disarmament proposal which I have heard was that put forward by the hon. Member for Salford, East who proposed a cut of £950 million in the defence budget. At a time when the Strategic Arms Limitation talks are continuing and we are supporting them, at a time when German Ostpolitik negotiations are proceeding and we are supporting them wholeheartedly, at a time when the Government are taking part in the Four-Power negotiations on Berlin, at a time when the Government have lodged a draft treaty on biological warfare in Geneva, it is incredible that we should be charged with making no serious effort to achieve détente and disarmament. The Amendment of the hon. Gentlemen is shallow in content, and I do not believe that it is one in which they themselves believe. I ask the House to reject the Amendment and to support the White Paper which we have introduced.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 312.

Division No. 216.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Edelman, Maurice


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Allen, Scholefield
Cohen, Stanley
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, Tom


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
English, Michael


Ashley, Jack
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Fred


Ashton, Joe
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Atkinson, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Barnes, Michael
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Joel
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Foley, Maurice


Beaney, Alan
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Foot, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dalyell, Tam
Ford, Ben


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Forrester, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Davidson, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Freeson, Reginald


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Garrett, W. E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Bradley, Tom
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Ginsburg, David


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Deakins, Eric
Golding, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Delargy, H. J.
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dormand, J. D.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cant, R. B.
Driberg, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Carmichael, Neil
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Dunn, James A.
Hardy, Peter


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Dunnett, Jack
Harper, Joseph


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Eadie, Alex
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)




Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
MacPherson, Malcolm
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hattersley, Roy
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Healey, Rt. Hn, Denis
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hooson, Emlyn
Marquand, David
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Horam, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Houghton, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mayhew, Christopher
Sillars, James


Huckfield, Leslie
Meacher, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mendelson, John
Small, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Stallard, A. W.


Janner, Greville
Molloy, William
Steel, David


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


John, Brynmor
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Molye, Roland
Strang, Gavin


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Murray, R. K.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ogden, Eric
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Halloran, Michael
Taverne, Dick


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Oram, Bert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Orbach, Maurice
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Judd, Frank
Orme, Stanley
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kaufman, Gerald
Oswald, Thomas
Tinn, James


Kelley, Richard
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tomney, Frank


Kerr, Russell
Paget, R. T.
Torney, Tom


Kinnock, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Lambie, David
Pardoe, John
Urwin, T. W.


Lamond, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Varley, Eric G.


Latham, Arthur
Pavitt, Laurie
Wainwright, Edwin


Lawson, George
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Leadbitter, Ted
Pendry, Tom
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Leonard, Dick
Pentland, Norman
Wallace, George


Lestor, Miss Joan
Perry, Ernest G.
Watkins, David


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Weitzman, David


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Prescott, John
Wellbeloved, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lipton, Marcus
Price, William (Rugby)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lomas, Kenneth
Probert, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Loughlin, Charles
Rankin, John
Whitlock, William


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McBride, Neil
Richard, Ivor
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McElhone, Frank
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McGuire, Michael
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)



Mackie, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackintosh, John P.
Roper, John
Mr. William Hamling and


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


McNamara, J. Kevin






NOES


Adley, Robert
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Body, Richard
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boscawen, Robert
Chichester-Clark, R.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bossom, Sir Clive
Churchill, W. S.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bowden, Andrew
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Astor, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Humphrey
Braine, Bernard
Clegg, Walter


Awdry, Daniel
Bray, Ronald
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brewis, John
Cooke, Robert


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brinton, Sir Tatton,
Coombs, Derek


Balniel, Lord
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cooper, A. E.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cordle, John


Batsford, Brian
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bryan, Paul
Cormack, Patrick


Bell, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Costain, A. P.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Buck, Antony
Crouch, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Crowder, F. P.


Benyon, W.
Burden, F. A.
Curran, Charles


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Biffen, John
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Blaker, Peter
Channon, Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack







Dean, Paul
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dixon, Piers
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Redmond, Robert


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kershaw, Anthony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eden, Sir John
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Farr, John
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fell, Anthony
Lambton, Antony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lane, David
Rost, Peter


Fidler, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Anthony


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Scott, Nicholas


Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Foster, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Sharples, Richard


Fowler, Norman
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'g'h &amp; Whitby)


Fox, Marcus
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford&amp; Stone)
MacArthur, Ian
Simeons, Charles


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.
Sinclair, Sir George


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McLaren, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gardner, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley
Soref, Harold


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow,E.)
Spence, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Sproat, Iain


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maddan, Martin
Stainton, Keith


Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodhew, Victor
Maginnis, John E.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Gorst, John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Gray, Hamish
Maude, Angus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Green, Alan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sutcliffe, John


Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Gummer, Selwyn
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Temple, John M.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hannan, John (Exeter)
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Harrison, Brian (Malden)
Money, Ernie
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tilney, John


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Monro, Hector
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Trew, Peter


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Havers, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hay, John
Mudd, David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hayhoe, Barney
Murton, Oscar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Heath, Rt. Hn, Edward
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Waddington, David


Hicks, Robert
Neave, Airey
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Higgins, Terence L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Normanton, Tom
Wall, Patrick


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nott, John
Walters, Dennis


Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Ward, Dame Irene


Holt, Miss Mary
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Warren, Kenneth


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Hornby, Richard
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Weds, John (Maidstone)


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Page, Graham (Crosby)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Howell, David (Guildford)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Percival, Ian
Wilkinson, John


Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner
Woodhouse. Hn. Christopher


Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton
Woodnutt, Mark


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Warsley, Marcus


James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Younger, Hn. George


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Proudfoot, Wilfred



Jessel, Toby




Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Jasper More.

Main Question put:—

Division No. 217.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fell, Anthony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kinsey, J. R.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fidler, Michael
Kirk, Peter


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kitson, Timothy


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Astor, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knox, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lambton, Antony


Awdry, Daniel
Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Foster, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fowler, Norman
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Balniel, Lord
Fox, Marcus
Le Marchant, Spencer


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Batsford, Brian
Fry, Peter
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nColdfield)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bell, Ronald
Gardner, Edward
Longden, Gilbert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gibson-Watt, David
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald Gosport)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
MacArthur, Ian


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McCrindle, R. A.


Biffen, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McLaren, Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gorst, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Body, Richard
Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Boscawen, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gray, Hamish
Maddan, Martin


Bowden, Andrew
Green, Alan
Madel, David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grieve, Percy
Maginnis, John E.


Brains, Barnard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bray, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil


Brewis, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Mather, Carol


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gurden, Harold
Maude, Angus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman


Burden, F. A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger


Channon, Paul
Havers, Michael
Molyneaux, James


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Paul
Money, Ernle


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hay, John
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector


Churchill, W. S.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hicks, Robert
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Clegg, Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mudd, David


Cooke, Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, test)
Murton, Oscar


Coombs, Derek
Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cooper, A. E.
Holt, Miss Mary
Neave, Alrey


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cormack, Patrick
Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia



Costain, A. P.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Normanton, Tom


Crouch, David
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John


Crowder, F. P.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Curran, Charles
Hunt, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborn, John


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Iremonger, T. L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
James, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dean, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Percival, Ian


Dixon, Piers
Jessel, Toby
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pounder, Rafton


Drayson, G. B.
Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dykes, Hugh
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Eden, Sir John
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kilfedder, James
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy


Farr, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James




Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

The House divided: Ayes 310, Nose 270.

Redmond, Robert
Speed, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Spence, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Sproat, Iain
Vickers, Dame Joan


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stainton, Keith
Waddington, David


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ridsdale, Julian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wall, Patrick


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Ward, Dame Irene


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Sutcliffe, John
Warren, Kenneth


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tapsell, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Tebbit, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Scott Nicholas
Temple, John M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Sharples, Richard
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Woodnutt, Mark


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Simeons, Charles
Tilney, John
Younger, Hon. George


Sinclair, Sir George
Trafford, Dr. Anthony



Skeet, T. H. H.
Trew, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Mr. Reginold Eyre and


Soref, Harold
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Deakins, Eric
Howell, Denis (Small Health)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Huckfield, Leslie


Allen, Scholefield
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Ashley, Jack
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Ashton, Joe
Dormand, J. D.
Hunter, Adam


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Janner, Greville


Barnes, Michael
Driberg, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Barnett, Joel
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Beaney, Alan
Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunnett, Jack
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Eadie, Alex
John, Brynmor


Bidwel, Sydney
Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Booth, Albert
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
English, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Fred
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Foley, Maurice
Kaufman, Gerald


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Michael
Kelley, Richard


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ford, Ben
Kerr, Russell


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Forrester, John
Kinnock, Neil


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lambie, David


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Freeson, Reginald
Lamond, James


Cant, R. B.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Latham, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Garrett, W. E.
Lawson, George


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Leadbitter, Ted


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Ginsburg, David
Leonard, Dick


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Golding, John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Gourley, Harry
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lipton, Marcus


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lomas, Kenneth


Conlan, Bernard
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Loughlin, Charles


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McBride, Neil


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hardy, Peter
McCartney, Hugh


Dalyell, Tam
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McElhone, Frank


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McGuire, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Mackenzie, Gregor


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mackie, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mackintosh, John P.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooson, Emlyn
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Horam, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
MacPherson, Malcolm







Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Pentland, Norman
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Perry, Ernest G.
Strang, Gavin


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Marks, Kenneth
Prescott, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Marquand, David
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Swain, Thomas


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Price, William (Rugby)
Taverne, Dick


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Probert, Arthur
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Mayhew, Christopher
Rankin, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Meacher, Michael
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Mendelson, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tinn, James


Mikardo, Ian
Richard, Ivor
Tomney, Frank


Millan, Bruce
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Torney, Tom


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Tuck, Raphael


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.


Molloy, William
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Varley, Eric G.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wainwright, Edwin


Morris, Alfred (Wytnenshawe)
Roper, John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wallace, George


Moyle, Roland
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Watkins, David


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Weitzman, David


Murray, R. K.
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, James, (Glasgow, Pollok)


O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitehead, Phillip


Oram, Bert
Sillars, James
Whitlock, William


Orbach, Maurice
Silverman, Julius
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Orme, Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Oswald, Thomas
Small, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Paget, R. T.
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Pardoe, John
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Steel, David



Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Pendry, Tom
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. William Hamling.

Resolved,


That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1971, contained in Command Paper No. 4592.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,]
That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, on the Vehicles (Excise) Bill [Lords] and on the Hydrocarbon Oil (Customs and Excise) Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

Orders of the Day — ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 19

APPLICATION OF SECURITY PROVISIONS TO COMPANIES ESTABLISHED IN CONNEC TION WITH AGREEMENT ON GAS CENTRIFUGE PROCESS

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 17, line 13, leave out "5 and" and insert "and 4 to".

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment will improve the security arrangements under the Bill in one particular respect. The purpose of Clause 19 is to ensure adequate protection for classified centrifuge information exchange and generated under the Gas Centrifuge Agreement. The Clause empowers the Secretary of State to make an order designating any company registered in this country which appears to him to have been formed in pursuance of the Tripartite Gas Centrifuge Agreement between this country, the Netherlands and West Germany.
As subsection (1) left this House, the effect of designating such a company would have been to apply to it the security provisions of paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 of the First Schedule. The Government have decided that the wording of this subsection was slightly deficient, in that it failed to provide for special constables of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary to guard the premises of companies designated under the Clause. By introducing a reference to paragraph 4 of the Schedule, the Amendment rectifies this difficulty.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: This Amendment from the Lords is of vital importance in a Bill which is transferring to private companies, albeit companies with majority Government shareholdings, certain matters which are essential to the security of the nation.
I am particularly worried because under Clause 19, which is being amended, it appears that further companies may be set up with private capital under the Gas Centrifuge Agreement. The Clause and the Amendment deals with security, not only of British Nuclear Fuels Limited and the Radiochemical Centre Limited but also any other companies which may be formed in any part of the United Kingdom.
The Amendment seeks to extend Schedule 1(4), which is now Schedule 1 to the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965, to firms wherever they may be set up now or later under the Gas Centrifuge Agreement. The House of Commons having sent the Bill without that paragraph (4) in it, but stating that it preferred to
Paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 of Schedule 1 to the Nuclear Installation Act, 1965, as set out in the Schedule to this Act
we should be careful before agreeing to increase the security provisions by involving special constables.
We must compare the request from the Lords for these extra security provisions with what already exists in the Schedule. The Schedule, as applied to the companies which are being hived off from the Atomic Energy Authority, provides in paragraph (2)
For the purposes of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, any office or employment under the specified body corporate shall be deemed to be an office under Her Majesty and any contract with the specified body corporate shall be deemed to he a contract made on behalf of Her Majesty
It is, therefore, clear from that provision that the whole paraphernalia of the Official Secrets Acts will be applied.
In paragraph (5)(1) there is power for the Minister to direct that anybody who is considered to be a security risk shall be discharged. That paragraph reads,
The specified body corporate shall comply with any directions which the Minister may give to them for the purpose of safeguarding information in the interests of national


security; and a direction under this sub-paragraph may in particular require the specified body corporate to terminate the employment of any person specified in the direction who is an officer of, or employed by, that body or may require that body not to appoint a person so specified to be an officer of, or to any employment under, that body.
That is a substantial power which is already conferred on the Minister under the general security arrangements relating to this matter. Indeed, many of my hon. Friends will no doubt think that we have gone too far in this respect. Had it not been for the rules of procedure, which do not allow us to table Amendments on matters which have already passed through this House, we would have sought, even at this late stage, to amend this provision.
We must also bear in mind that paragraph 4 and its application in the light of paragraph 6 of the regulations will also apply to these new firms, for it says that without the consent of the Minister, anybody may have his emloyment terminated on security grounds. That in some way redresses some of the anxiety which I know is felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter).
In addition to these powers in the Schedule, we are now asked to agree to an Amendment, tabled at the last moment by the Lords, so that special constables may be appointed. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule states:
Section 3 of the Special Constables Act 1923 (which, as subsequently amended and extended, provides for the appointment of persons nominated by the Defence Council to be special constables within certain places and limits, and, in particular, in and within fifteen miles of premises in the possession or under the control of the Defence Council) shall have effect as if all premises in the occupation or under the control of the specified body corporate were premises under the control of the Defence Council.
Sub-paragraph (2) states:
In relation to any premises in the occupation or under the control of the specified body corporate, the powers of nomination conferred on the Defence Council by that section as applied by sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall be exercisable also by the Authority.
10.30 p.m.
We are in a situation in which we have already agreed to very substantial powers, by implementation of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. By giving the power

to the Minister to require the dismissal of anybody who is suspected or found to be in any way a security risk, we are now saying, at this very late stage, that it is necessary to invoke paragraph 4 of the Schedule to increase the power for security arrangements.
Before the House agrees to these extra powers being conferred, we need to consider carefully the whole question of the security arrangements in respect of these proposals, because at present the two companies which have been established, British Nuclear Fuels Limited and The Radiochemical Centre Limited, will still have shareholdings the majority of which must, for all time, be held by the Government. I cannot find in the Bill or in the debate any undertaking that any other companies which can be formed in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) of Clause 19 are also for all time to have a majority shareholding by the Government. If I am correct in my interpretation, it is possible that a company could be formed somewhere at some time in the United Kingdom to deal with matters under the gas centrifuge agreement signed in March, 1970 which would be wholly in private ownership or would have a major shareholding in private ownership.
The House needs reassurance that by applying these stringent security requirements we are not imposing upon any such company conditions which would run contrary to the responsibility of directors under the Companies Act. The House is aware that the basic doctrine of shareholding and directorships of companies is that the first responsibility is to shareholders.
Before we apply these extra powers, we ought to clearly set out that no future company which will be formed in respect of the gas centrifuge agreement will be placed on the same basis and conditions as the two companies already formed, British Nuclear Fuels Limited and The Radiochemical Centre Limited, or we should say that we are possibly putting an unfair burden and responsibility on these companies.
In considering the Lords Amendment to apply paragraph 4 of the security arrangements, it is worth recalling, on the point of whether it is appropriate to apply the security requirements to private companies, that when the previous Bill was passing through the House, the


Lords, in their wisdom, decided to reject the Clause that called for a majority public shareholding in the company and wanted all these new companies dealing with the profitable side of the Atomic Energy Authority to be hived off to private enterprise. The Lords amended that Bill. I suppose the Minister can argue that, as the Government have seen the error of their ways and have decided that it is essential in the national interest that there should be a majority public shareholding in these two companies for all time, it is reasonable to apply these extra security provisions. We shall be interested to hear the Minister's views.
On Clause 19, I want to ask some specific questions about the gas centrifuge agreement and how the Lords Amendment will apply. First, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us, before we agree to this extra security arrangement, whether this agreement which was signed in March, 1970, has been ratified by the United Kingdom or by the other contracting parties—the Governments of the Netherlands and of the Federal Republic of Germany. It would be odd if we were being asked to agree to these stringent security arrangements being applied by virtue of the implementation of the Special Constables Act, 1923, and all that that means, in pursuance of things which may happen under the agreement without the agreement having been ratified.
Therefore, we need to know whether the Government intend to ratify the agreement and whether the agreement has been ratified by the Governments of the Netherlands and of the Federal Republic of Germany and, if it has not been ratified, whether the Government have any assurance that those Governments intend to ratify the agreement and whether the Government themselves intend to do so.
It would be stupid to agree to this Amendment without that clear understanding. We should be agreeing for no purpose to extra powers which the House is always loath to pass. All hon. Members—I do not believe there is any great party divergence on this matter—are jealous of Parliament's necessity carefully to examine legislation which can impinge upon the liberties and freedoms of Her Majesty's subjects. It is this principle that we are debating.

Clause 19(2) says:
For the purposes of this section the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument designate any company registered (whether before or after the passing of this Act) in some part of the United Kingdom and appearing to him to have been formed pursuant to an agreement dated 4th March 1970 providing for collaboration in the development and exploitation of the gas centrifuge process for producing enriched uranium and made between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Governments of the Federal Republic of Ger many and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
That is a pretty wide provision, referring to
any company registered … in some part of the United Kingdom and appearing … to have been formed pursuant to an agreement".
Before we can accept the Amendment the Minister must spell out a little more clearly what the Government's intentions are. Is he prepared to give a specific undertaking that the two companies that have already been set up, and whose articles of association have been placed in the Library—British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and Radiochemical Centre Ltd.—are the only companies that will be formed in pursuance of the agreement? We all know the Minister's views on hiving off the profitable parts of public industry. Is there hidden away somewhere a plan to set up other companies entirely or predominantly with private shareholdings?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And then they go into liquidation.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that I shall be called to order if I pursue the matter of the Rolls-Royce liquidation.
Before we agree to these further stringent security measures we must have the assurance that there will not be further companies with private capital to which the powers could be applied under the agreement.
Clause 19(2) is very wide. Does it mean that the manufacture of enriched uranium or the manufacture of the machinery and all the other apparatus involved in the gas centrifuge can be done only by public companies, or can it be done by private companies?
We also need to know—and this partially touches on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)—whether the


security provisions will be applied to any sub-contractors who might be involved under the agreement, providing parts for the manufacture of the gas centrifuge itself. We must know how these extra stringent security provisions will be applied, and how wide their application will be. How will they be applied to sub-contractors producing the nuts and bolts and all the other bits and pieces for the gas centrifuge equipment?
There is another worry that my hon. Friends will have. The preamble to the agreement says:
Considering that development of this method on a co-operative basis will strengthen European technological co-operation and that its joint industrial exploitation will contribute to European economic integration;…
Declaring furthermore their readiness to integrate their collaboration into the framework of an enlarged European community;…
the high contracting parties have come to this agreement.
If we grant the powers set out in paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965, will they be weakened or strengthened if we go into the Community? Are there regulations in the Community which would impose under this sort of declaration even greater and more stringent requirements than we are being asked to agree?
In a narrow debate of this nature I cannot go into any of the arguments for or against our joining Europe, but I am certain that it would assist many of my hon. Friends, who feel passionately either for or against our entry into Europe, in making up their minds on whether to grant these new powers to the Government if we could have from the Minister a clear statement on these matters.
10.45 p.m.
I turn to the substance of my case against the Amendment. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule sets out the requirements for the implementation of Section 3 of the Special Constables Act, 1923. I am sure hon. Members will be glad to have their memories refreshed as to precisely what that Section says. It reads as follows:
Any two justices of the peace may appoint such persons as may be nominated for the purpose by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council, to be special constables within the yards and stations and limits within which constables of the metropolitan police force may by virtue of the Metropolitan Police Act

1860, or the Metropolitan Police (Employment in Scotland) Act,1914, both as originally enacted and as applied to the Air Force, be employed; and every person so appointed shall be sworn in by any such justices duly to execute the office of a constable within the places and limits aforesaid, and when so sworn in shall have the same powers and privileges, and be liable to the same duties and responsibilities as constables of the metropolitan police force have and are liable to under the said Acts.
Subsection (2) goes on to say:
Special constables appointed under this section shall be under the exclusive control of the department on whose nomination they are appointed, and that department shall have power to suspend or terminate the appointment of any such special constable.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Could my hon. Friend answer two questions? First, could he say where he obtained a copy of that Act and whether copies are freely available so that hon. Members could look at them? Secondly, he referred to the swearing in of constables of the Metropolitan Police. As I understand the situation, the Metropolitan Police cover only what I would term the Greater London area. How would the provisions apply to special constables if such factories were situated in areas outside the Greater London area?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The simple answer is that I do not know. This will have to be made clear by the Minister.

Mr. Bob Brown: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: May I finish answering my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North and I will then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown). In regard to the availability of copies of the Special Constables Act, 1923, I regret to tell my hon. Friend that, unless he orders copies from the Vote Office, they are not readily available.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. My hon. Friend says that copies of that Act are not readily available. I believe this matter has been raised on other occasions and it has been laid down previously that if documents are not freely available then the House cannot be expected to take a decision in the full knowledge of the facts. I tried to get this information. I make no aspersions against the officials of the House and the Vote Office who do a wonderful job, but it is a


logical point of order to ask how hon. Members can be expected at this late hour to continue a debate if my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford is the only hon. Member with the relevant document.
I was hoping to take part in this debate and I wished to have a look at this document. I also know that some of my hon. Friends would like to see the document and to take part in the debate. I therefore ask whether in dealing with this point of order you will accept a Motion by me that we should report Progress and ask leave to sit again, by which time we may be supplied with documents.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a point of order. It is a matter for the Government in dealing with the Vote Office. In any case, any plea of ignorance by the hon. Member for West Ham, North may be met by the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford has now supplied information covering that gap in his knowledge.

Mr. Ray Carter: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that the question of availability of a document is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Carter: With reference to your remarks, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I have replied to the point, which was not a point of order. Mr. Wellbeloved.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Could you advise me, Mr. Speaker, as to where my hon. Friends and I can obtain copies of the document necessary for this debate? I have previously been advised that it is the job of Mr. Speaker and his staff to see that the Vote Office has such copies of documents available. Recently when some copies of documents were not available Mr. Speaker arranged to have copies roneo-ed. With great respect, it has been laid down by your predecessor, Dr. King, that the Government are not responsible for papers being available to hon. Members because Mr. Speaker's office and the Clerks Office kindly arranged with the Vote Office to have copies roneo-ed and made available to hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: I am advised that what the hon. Member has said is not so and

that my predecessor has not ruled to that effect. I will examine the Rulings of my predecessor, but concerning this evening I am prepared to rule for myself.

Mr. Wellbeloyed: As to availability, I had the greatest difficulty in obtaining a copy of this document. It is not available in the Vote Office and I had to institute a search in the Library and to make photostat copies of the Library copy so that I could follow the meaning of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 under the Nuclear Installations Act and to prepare my speech.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You have ruled that it is not within the competence of the Chair to see that papers are available. May I ask whether it would be in order for me to ask for the Leader of the House, whose duty it is to see that such papers are available, to make them available to hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Chair has to interpret the rules of the House and I have ruled that the availability of documents is not a matter for the Chair. No doubt the hon. Member's point, which was not a point of order, has been heard and noted by the Minister.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I will give way to the Minister if he wishes. Apparently his silence means that he is content that the House should not have these documents made available to hon. Members. If this is to be the attitude of the Minister there is little doubt that I shall be asking my hon. Friends to divide. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme wished to intervene.

Mr. Bob Brown: I must first admonish my hon. Friend for suggesting that I represent a village in the Midlands, Newcastle-under-Lyme, when I represent the premier constituency in the great City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I understood my hon. Friend to say that any two magistrates could undertake these powers. Am I right in assuming that, for instance, the Gosforth magistrates, of whom we have heard with regard to the Desramault case or the Newcastle-upon-Tyne magistrates could take this decision relevant to the Metropolitan area? Further, my hon. Friend tended to hurry


through his introductory remarks, and I appreciate that he wants to make progress, but could he go into more detail on this question of our entry into the Common Market—

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. I wonder whether it might help the House if you were to point out to hon. Members concerned that this refers only to the Atomic Energy Special Constabulary and does not cover what the hon. Member is worried about.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, that is not a point of order, it is a point of argument.

Mr. Wellbeloved: It is a point of argument and—

Mr. Bob Brown: On a point of order. I was in the middle of an intervention.

Mr. Speaker: Interventions of this sort should be short.

Mr. Bob Brown: I will not be a moment. I was suggesting that my hon. Friend should ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to elaborate on the points he made about the technicalities of entry into Europe.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the serious points he has made. I apologise for mixing up the designation of his constituency. I see that he represents a constituency on the banks of a major river, as I do. No doubt he sometimes qualifies for the title of "Mouth of the Tyne" in the same way as I sometimes am referred to as the Mouth of the Thames".

Mr. Walter Clegg: Humbug.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) keeps calling "humbug" from a sedentary position. If he wishes to intervene from a standing position I will gladly give way. If he does not then I think there is some question of order involved, as to whether a Government Whip, not prepared to intervene or take part in the debate, should continue to follow the example of the Prime Minister and, from a seated position, confine his political argument to hurling abuse across the Chamber.

Mr. Thomas Swain: That is his maiden speech.

Mr. David Watkins: My hon. Friend has not touched on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) about any two magistrates having powers with regard to the Metropolitan Area. Since, through Government incompetence, this document is not available, would he confirm the point by starting his remarks again at the point about any two magistrates?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I can assist my hon. Friend. The Long Title of the Special Constables Act, 1923 is recorded on the photostat copy, which I must assume is a correct copy of the Act in the absence of the availability of the Act in the Vote Office. The Long Title is:
An Act to make perpetual, subject to an amendment, the Special Constables Act, 1914; to provide for the employment of special constables in connection with Naval, Military and Air Force yards and stations; and to remove certain limitations on the appointment of special constables in Scotland.
One must assume that it is in order for two magistrates anywhere within the United Kingdom to swear in a special constable nominated by the Defence Council. That would be my interpretation, but I must caution my hon. Friend to bear in mind that I am not a member of the learned fraternity, and I would sooner have the Minister's more precise interpretation of the Act than ask the House to rely on mine.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I raised with Mr. Speaker a legitimate point which he ruled was not a point of order, although he agreed that there was a necessity for us to have the Act which we cannot get. Mr. Speaker said that it was not his responsibility but the Government's. My hon. Friend has been reading from a photostat copy of the Act which may or may not be a correct photostat. I make no aspersions against my hon. Friend's honesty or sincerity. I accept his word that he read it correctly. My hon. Friend then gave his interpretation, which may or may not be correct, and said that he was not a member of the learned legal profession. We must accept my hon. Friend's word


because there is no one on the Government Front Bench who can either quote the Act or correct my hon. Friend. If we cannot have the Act before us, there should be someone here to tell us whether my hon. Friend is right or wrong.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Member will recognise a Parliamentary situation which frequently occurs. The Chair cannot compel the attendance of anybody to answer questions in the House. The Chair has to try to see that all hon. Members stay in order. So far as I can see, there is nothing out of order.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I go along with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North in saying that when we are dealing with a complex matter of interpretation of an Act in respect of the Metropolitan Police the Home Secretary or a law officer should have been present instead of a junior Under-Secretary of State.
I note that the Leader of the House has just entered the Chamber. He may not have heard the matters which have been under discussion. I will draw to his attention that paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 of the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965, to which Lords Amendment No. 1 refers, sets out that Section 3 of the Special Constables Act, 1923, shall be invoked giving powers for special constables to carry out certain duties in particular places.
The Leader of the House will be interested to know that I have, after great diligence and difficulty, obtained a photostat copy of the Special Constables Act from the Library but that we are now in a difficulty. I am explaining to the House my interpretation of the Act, but I am not a learned gentleman; I have no training in the law. I can only read the words of this photostat copy. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North has rightly pointed out, we have no certainty that this photostat copy is an authentic copy of the Act. In view of this, would the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to taking steps now to ensure that either a Law Officer or the Home Secretary is called into the Chamber so that the House can proceed with some certainty in these grave matters? If he wishes to intervene, I will certainly give way. I know that, with his usual care and courtesy, he tries to meet the wishes of the House, and I am certain

that he will find that it is the wish of every hon. Member on this side of the House, and, no doubt, of hon. Members opposite, that the House should be in possession of the facts in respect of this most important Act which we are discussing in relation to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Eric Deakins: We are dealing with a very important topic here and I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford about it. This matter is far too important to be left to lawyers. We are dealing with an issue which affects the liberty of the subject and this house has always taken great pride and care in not leaving such matters to lawyers. They are matters to be debated by anyone in this House. Although we may not all be lawyers, we want to preserve the important British principle that the liberty of the subject must be preserved at all costs. If my hon. Friend is right, there are things in the Lords Amendment which detract from the liberty of the subject.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree. I hope that the Leader of the House has been listening carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) has said, because this is a vitally important matter. As I go on into my speech about the Lords Amendment, I will be dealing in some detail with the powers of special constables.

Mr. Carter: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford aware that the position is not quite as hard and fast as far as the law is concerned as he believes? What he and I have before us as a document purporting to be the Act is, in fact, merely a summary, an abridgement.
Furthermore, I draw his attention to Section 3(3) of the Act, which he has perhaps overlooked because of the abridgement. It raises far wider issues, particularly as the Act affects Scotland. Section 3(3) states:
In the application of this section to Scotland references to any two justices of the peace shall be construed as references to the magistrates of a burgh or the standing joint committee of a county, as the case may be, and the reference to swearing in shall be read as a reference to making a declaration or taking an oath, as the case may be, in the form and manner prescribed in section seventy-nine of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and section eleven of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1857, respectively.


As a far wider area of the law is thus drawn into this controversy, should we not at least have in the Chamber tonight the Law Officers of Scotland, since Scotland is particularly mentioned in the Act?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for intervening and drawing my attention to Section 3(3) of the Special Constables Act, 1923, because both he and I had great difficulty in acquiring these photostat copies. My hon. Friend has obtained his photostat copy from a different source to me. My copy merely contains the words, about Section 3, "(applies to Scotland)". I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consider our difficulty.
The Lords Amendment means that we are asked to agree that paragraph 4 of the first Schedule shall be applied to installations set up under the Gas centrifuge Agreement. It specifically refers to Section 3 of the Special Constables Act, 1923. The whole of the Amendment is fundamentally based on that requirement. It is now clear that the Minister has not a clue on this matter. We have offered to give way to him, but he has declined to intervene. We are debating a matter of great consequence, giving these special constables power of the same standard and extent as every constable, to be exercised within a radius of 15 miles from the premises in which they are stationed. This is vital and the House does not have the necessary documents.
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to join with me in some way to appeal to the Leader of the House, who is present, to ensure that the documents are made available, a Law Officer attends this debate or the Amendment is withdrawn. It is intolerable that we should be asked to give the Government these powers when we do not have the principal Act upon which they are based. I will intervene in my own speech on a point of order to ask that you use your powers to see that this is done.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have an even bigger difficulty than the hon. Gentleman, in that I do not have these powers. The Government have heard him and it is for them to decide what they will do. There is nothing that the Chair can do

to force anyone to come here or to produce any documents. Since I cannot do that, perhaps I can advise him that it would be in the best interests of all if he left that argument.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Carter: Will not my hon. Friend agree that he came into the Chamber tonight in the firm belief that he had in his possession the Special Constables Act, 1923, whereas it has turned out to be an abridgement of an abridgement of the Act? Has not he, therefore, to some extent based his arguments on a completely false assumption? In view of that, perhaps I might help my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand what the hon. Member for Northfield wishes to do, but I think that it must be recognised that interventions should be as short as possible and not too discursive. I ask the hon. Gentleman to respect the conventions of the House.

Mr. Carter: I shall be very brief in my remarks. I am trying to help my hon. Friend. The document in my possession is an abridgement of the Act, and it may cause my hon. Friend to reconsider some of the points that he has made so far. With it, my hon. Friend may be able to go back over some of his points and make them in a far more informed way.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Having quickly compared my hon. Friend's document with my own, I see that Section 3(1) of the Act of 1923 is identical, with one exception. My hon. Friend's copy contains the words
… Admiralty, Army Council or Air Council…",
whereas my document has been altered by the deletion of those words and the insertion of "Defence Council", so bringing the Section slightly more up to date.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was about to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford whether he would make a suggestion to the Leader of the House. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber. Perhaps my hon. Friend, instead, will ask the Under-Secretary, who obviously has a copy of


the Act, whether he cannot arrange for photostat copies to be prepared and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The Under-Secretary must have heard my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I put it to the hon. Gentleman in all seriousness that it would facilitate and expedite our discussion of this Lords Amendment if he could arrange for his officials to obtain photostat copies and circulate them. The point is that, so far, I have dealt with general matters, and I am about to come to the main burden of my remarks. Obviously there will be considerable difficulty if my hon. Friends have not copies of the Act, in that they will have to query with me any point that they do not fully understand as I develop my case, and that may well prolong the debate. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to act sensibly and respond to the genuine point which has been put to him by arranging for photostat copies to be made available.

Mr. Swain: Clearly there is some contradiction between the two documents which have come to light as a result of the diligent researches of my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Crayford and Northfield. In view of that, should not the whole of the Act of 1923 be made available, so that there can be no misrepresentations in this House about the decision that we have to reach at the end of this debate?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am indebted to my hon. Friend who again has made a sensible and important point. I should say to my hon. Friend and to the House that Section 3 of the Special Constables Act, 1923, is the only Section—if I do not make this clear I am sure that you, Sir Robert, in your wisdom will call me to order—which is referred to in paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965.

Mr. Swain: Does my hon. Friend agree that there may be some relativity between Section 3 and other Sections of the 1923 Act as there is in most Acts of Parliament a certain relativity between the Sections which apply different interpretations because of their relativity?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is for that reason that I am sure that I speak on behalf of all

hon. Members on this side in condemning the Government for their attitude towards this vital matter affecting security. It is disgraceful that these documents are not available. It is a scandal that the Under-Secretary sits tight in his seat, despite the many appeals which have been made to him on this matter. It is indicative of the contempt which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon and hon. Friends have for the civil liberties of the people of this nation.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it goes further than that? The Under-Secretary introduced the Iron Castings Order a week or two ago in a most cursory—

Mr. Carter: Cavalier.

Mr. Kaufman: —and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield says, cavalier fashion. Tonight the hon. Gentleman spoke for about two minutes when introducing the Amendment. Does the hon. Gentleman think that this place is a rubber stamp? No doubt he wishes that it were.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), as always, is right on the ball and has again pinned the Under-Secretary to his bench. The Minister is more concerned with the implementation of his party's doctrinaire economic policies than with the civil liberties of the people of this realm. The hon. Gentleman is more concerned with pursuing this newfound economic policy of the Government: if it is a profitable industry, flog it; if it is a bankrupt industry, keep it. The hon. Gentleman is more concerned with that kind of attitude than with the realities of the freedom of the individual.
I appeal to my hon. Friends to allow me to develop my argument a little further without intervention for a moment or two. I do not want to discourage them too much, because of the absence of the documents, but it would be of assistance to the House if I made progress on the main burden of the argument which I wish to adduce.
Section 3 of the Special Constables Act states that special constables must be persons who are nominated by the Defence Council.


I ask the Under-Secretary, when he comes to reply, to make clear to Parliament whether the persons nominated by the Defence Council will be subject to some form of vetting before their names are passed on to the magistrates and whether any private company which might subsequently be formed under the Gas Centrifuge Agreement, entirely with private capital, would be in a position to make suggestions to the Defence Council regarding people who might be nominated as special constables. This is an important point upon which we need some clear statement from the Government.

Mr. Swain: My hon. Friend mentioned the vetting by the magistrates of the individual who was to be appointed as a special constable. Will he agree that it is equally important to vet the magistrates who make the appointment?

Mr. Wellbeloved: That is a point of view, and I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply—and indeed my hon. Friend—will develop that point later, because it is a matter which should receive consideration. I am concerned, because if a private company were allowed to make recommendations to the Defence Council which were accepted without any positive vetting, we should have the sort of situation which has arisen in respect of private companies which have employed private security firms where people with criminal records can act as security guards. It would be a scandal of monumental proportions if, under these provisions, a private firm could make a nomination to the Defence Council of a person whom they wanted to be invested with the powers of a special constable, and after the person had been invested with those powers by two magistrates it was discovered that he had a criminal record.

Mr. Clinton Davis: That is a point to which I have alluded at Question Time on numerous occasions. I have talked about the employment of Securicor, about which I have expressed very grave anxiety. There seems to be a predilection on the part of this Government to employ organisations of that kind in other fields, such as immigration. Here we have a situation where the

security of the individual is being threatened, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will develop this point.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am indebted to my hon. Friend. He and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North have developed this matter at great length and it is a matter which ought to occupy this House this evening, because it would be a most serious situation if this practice, which occurs in private security firms, should occur in respect of these other establishments which are being set up under the Gas Centrifuge Agreement.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I suggest that this cannot possibly be in order on this Lords Amendment, because what we are dealing with here is only making applicable a paragraph in the Special Constables Act, 1923. The whole question of the private employment of other forms of security really does not arise on this Amendment from their Lordships.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think there is some substance in the hon. Member's submission to me. I think the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to heed what has been said and take it from me that that is really correct.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I put this point to you? I accept that you are in the same difficulty as many of my hon. Friends, and you do not have the benefit of a copy of the Special Constables Act 1923 before you. I take it that the hon. Gentleman has now supplied you with a copy, and you will see that subsection (1) of Section 3 states that any two justices of the peace may appoint such persons as may be nominated for the purpose by the Defence Council to be special constables.
11.30 p.m.
Under the agreement mentioned in Clause 19(2) relating to collaboration for the development of the gas centrifuge process for producing uranium, other companies may be established. I have asked whether that could be done by private shareholding. Those companies could, it seems, be in a position to recommend the Defence Council to nominate persons to be appointed as


special constables. It would be disgraceful if such a company, set up under this agreement, could recommend the Council to nominate as special constables people who might have criminal records. The Minister cannot shuffle off his responsibilities in this matter with a two-minute speech.
When the two justices of the peace consider the appointment of persons nominated by the Defence Council, will they have any discretion or must they, under the 1923 Act, accept those nominations? Will they be able to call for reports on the nominees?
I see the Patronage Secretary in his place on the Government Front Bench. He always casts a sinister shadow over our proceedings. Is he aware that we are in difficulty because, in debating a matter which affects the fundamental liberty of the subject—

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to make submissions every time a fresh face appears on the Treasury Bench when you have already commented on that practice? In other words, is not the hon. Gentleman guilty of tedious repetition?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for me to judge.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman is obviously inexperienced in the procedures of the House. I was appealing to a Government Minister who has recently entered the Chamber, who has responsibilities, as has the Leader of the House, to all hon. Members, to do something about the scandalous position which both you, Sir, and Mr. Deputy Speaker, have rightly ruled is not within your authority to give directions. I appeal to him as a senior and important member of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the House is provided with photostat copies of the Special Constables Act, 1923. Many of my hon. Friends are having to intervene in my speech because they have to query certain matters in respect of the Act, which is not available to them.

Mr. Carter: Paragraph 4 of the Schedule refers to the fact that the special constables would have powers within a 15 miles radius of the centre of the premises to which they belong. Many nuclear installations, and probably many

of the premises that the two private companies being set up will have under their control, are on the sea shore. Will their powers carry them 15 miles out to sea? If so, will not the whole question of maritime law be raised?

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend has jumped a couple of sentences ahead of my thoughts on this matter.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, are we not getting into a debate on the merits of the 1923 Act? Surely these matters were debated when that Act was a Bill and when later it was amended. Are we not solely concerned, with this Lords Amendment, simply with whether a certain part of that Act shall apply to the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) is perfectly right. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford is in some danger.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Are we not in the difficulty, Mr. Speaker, that paragraph 4, referred to in the Lords Amendment, specifically mentions Section 3 of the Special Constables Act? Surely it is proper, Sir, before we confer upon these authorities the powers set out in Section3—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. May I ask my hon. Friend to read this out. We do not have it. I should like to know whether my hon. Friend is correct or not.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I wish to help my hon. Friends. The passage I refer to is available. It is paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Bill. I was drawing your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Lords Amendment refers to paragraph 4, which specifically refers to Section 3 of the Special Constables Act, 1923. If the House is being asked to approve that paragraph with reference to the powers contained in Section 3 of the 1923 Act, surely it must be within order for Parliament to consider whether it is proper to agree to the Lords Amendment and to agree to those powers being applied in the particular respect that we are asked to apply them in this paragraph.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford has been addressing


the House for over an hour. I must ask him to draw his remarks to an end.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Mr. Speaker, I would have drawn my remarks to an end some time prior to your resuming the Chair but for the point—I submit it to you in all seriousness—which I was putting to the Parliamentary Secretary. Many of my hon. Friends have had to intervene frequently in my remarks because of the absence of documents. It would be unfair to place upon my shoulders the responsibility for the length of my speech when it has been subjected to frequent intervention because of the absence of documents. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me to complete my submissions on this matter involving the freedom and liberty of Her Majesty's subjects. It would be serious if Parliament was prevented from properly considering the full implications of these matters.
I have dealt with the question of the Defence Council and the justice of the peace. I turn now to the question which

is of paramount importance. What are the powers which will be conferred upon the special constables who will be appointed if the Amendment is agreed to? It is intended that these special constables should exercise their jurisdiction within a radius of 15 miles from the premises which they are charged to be in control of. Assume that a nuclear firm under the agreement was established in the vicinity of Charing Cross and that special constables appointed to those premises had jurisdiction within a radius of 15 miles. The House will begin to understand the importance to be attached to the Amendment, because it is being said that a special constable appointed to those premises shall exercise—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 36.

NOES


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sillars, James


Carter, Ray (Birmngh'm, Northfield)
Kaufman, Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Latham, Arthur
Small, William


Cohen, Stanley
Lawson, George
Steel, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Deakins, Eric
Mackie, John
Swain, Thomas


English, Michael
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Fred
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Prescott, John
Mr. James Wellbeloved and


Janner, Greville
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Mr. Bob Brown.

Question put accordingly, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

Division No. 219.]
AYES
[11.50 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Haselhurst, Alan
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Havers, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Atkins, Humphrey
Hornby, Richard
Pounder, Rafton


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Maker, Peter
Hunt, John
Redmond, Robert


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boscawen, Robert
James, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Bray, Ronald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brewis, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Kinsey, J. R.
Sharples, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Churchill, W. S.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Soref, Harold


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Longden, Gilbert
Speed, Keith


Cockeram, Eric
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Cormack, Patrick
McCrindle, R. A.
Sproat, Iain


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dixon, Piers
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mather, Carol
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Sutcliffe, John


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fidler, Michael
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Tebbit, Norman


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fortescue, Tim
Molyneaux, James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fowler, Norman
Money, Ernle
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fox, Marcus
Monks, Mrs. Connie
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Warren, Kenneth


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
More, Jasper
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gower, Raymond
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Worsley, Marcus


Gray, Hamish
Normanton, Tom
Younger, Hn. George


Green, Alan
Nott, John



Gummer, Selwyn
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.




NOES


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Gerald
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Latham, Arthur
Swain, Thomas


Deakins, Eric
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


English, Michael
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Bob Brown.

12 midnight

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Like you, I have been in this House for a long time and

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 17.

I know that Mr. Speaker has sole right to decide if and when to accept the closure. I am also well aware that the Patronage Secretary has the right to move


the closure at any time. But you will of course agree that Mr. Speaker, in deciding whether or not to accept the Motion, must himself decide whether he feels that there has been adequate debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) may theoretically have spoken for one hour and 23 minutes, but because of the point of order raised earlier about availability of documents, he was interrupted on a number of occasions by hon. Members on either side of the House. I doubt whether he spoke consistently for the whole period.

I appreciate that you could not be in the Chair for the whole time, but did it occur to you that neither the Minister nor my hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench who were taking notes, had spoken? If Mr. Speaker had been in the Chair for the whole time, he might have appreciated that hon. Members did not have adequate time to discuss the matter before the closure was moved.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member has pointed out, this is a matter entirely for Mr. Speaker, who has to form his own view as to a reasonable time for the discussion of an Amendment. It is not required that he should explain, but I do so on this occasion without wishing it to be taken as a precedent. I considered that about 45 minutes was sufficient time for discussion of the Amendment. In fact I did not accept the Closure until after an hour and a uarter.

Mr. Swain: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: There can be no point of order as to the Closure.

Mr. Swain: A new point of order, a point of order arising from what you have just said—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: No point of order can arise out of what I have just said.

Mr. Swain: Further to that point of order, may I ask whether you are in the Chair or the hon. Member who has just returned from the Smoking Room and is seeking to call me to order?

Mr. Speaker: I am in the Chair.
I now call Amendment No. 2 and with it we can discuss Amendment No. 3. These Amendments involve Privilege.

Clause 20

PENSION SCHEMES

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 19, line 8, at end insert
on that date became an employee of the Council; or
(b) at any time after 31st March 1969 (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) was or is taken into the employment of the Council to undertake research in astrophysics at that laboratory.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As you have said, Mr. Speaker, this Amendment and the next Amendment can conveniently be taken together. Their substance was discussed at some length in Committee in this House and in another place. They arise out of an undertaking given by the Minister for Industry in reply to an Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). The purpose of the two Amendments is very similar to what my hon. Friend sought to add to the Clause.
The trade unions concerned made further representations on the question before the House as a consequence of which the Government have acceded to their suggestion that these words be added. The purpose is to permit the Atomic Energy Authority's pension scheme to be extended so as to apply to new recruits engaged to work on astrophysics at the Science Research Council's laboratory at Culham.
These Amendments should not be taken as establishing a new principle. There already exists a clear principle, which has been followed by successive Governments, that staff of one employer are not normally covered for superannuation purposes in the scheme of another employer. This principle is normally set aside only in respect of staff who are transferred with their work with little or no option. However, it is recognised that particular circumstances may require special treatment and in the present case the Government have accepted the argument that the Bill should not prejudge the question whether new astrophysics recruits at Culham should be admitted to the Atomic Energy Authority's pension


scheme or not. Therefore, although the Government have no intention of allowing the power to be used we are prepared at least to leave the question open by supporting the Amendments.
The Amendments are not drawn so widely as that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon. His Amendment referred to persons engaged for work on astrophysics not just at Culham but at any Science Research Council establishment. It is in respect of staff at Culham that the case for the Amendment has been argued and accepted and it is right that the Amendment should be limited in this way.
It is similar to that moved by Lord Delacourt-Smith on the previous occasion when this matter was before the House and as it is to the benefit of the staff side, and in response to pressure at an earlier stage I hope that the House will accept the Amendment without undue delay.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am surprised that we have had nothing from the Minister about the extent to which he has discussed this with the trade unions concerned. This is surely a question of industrial relations. The Government for weeks now have been preventing discussion, adopting a Reichstag attitude to hon. Members and condemning trade unions for failing to go through normal arbitration procedures, yet they come along here hoping to pass Measures affecting conditions of service of trade unions "on the nod", without any debate.

Mr. Ridley: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I will give way in a moment. I have to be careful because if I give way I may find that the Patronage Secretary will come along and move the closure. Knowing from immediate, bitter experience that the Chair is almost certain to accept this Motion, I do not want to find that in giving way I have lost the chance to say a few words.
I would have thought that the Minister would have said that he had held discussions for about four or five weeks with the unions. Instead we have a Government which have admonished trade unions, have put on a guillotine, rebuked Post Office and other workers for failing to carry on normal industrial relations—

which I do not accept—coming along and failing to say one word about what discussions have been held with the Electrical Trades Union. I do not think that that is the correct title now, but my hon. Friends will remember it as such. The power workers are members of that union and they may find that this is not adequate.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Member for Abington and myself in supporting him said what we did on Report because of what we had heard from the Institute of Professional Civil Servants, which is the union concerned. This Amendment is entirely to meet its point of view, which has been clearly put to us.

Mr. Lewis: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention, which has helped me in my case. The Minister has refrained—I do not know whether he has done so deliberately—from telling us that the Amendment arose because of the excellent work of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. I should have thought that the Minister would have said that the Amendment had been put forward at the behest of his hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and his hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) acting on behalf of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants no doubt in their trade union capacity— I am glad to see that they are members of a trade union. Had he done so I would not have attacked him.
I still feel the Minister should have paid tribute to this professional trade union which is affiliated to the T.U.C. The T.U.C. has been castigated in recent weeks for its failure to carry out normal industrial relations, and the first thing the Minister should have done was to pay tribute to the trade union. I must take the word of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely if he tells me that it was through his efforts, and those of his hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants that this Amendment was put forward, and I must perhaps change my mind and give it consideration and support.

Mr. Bob Brown: I am sure my hon. Friend did not intentionally mislead the


House—it is the last thing he would want to do—in saying that the Institution of Professional Civil Servants was affiliated to the T.U.C. I am certain that it is not, and I ask him to accept this correction.

Mr. Lewis: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. If I am wrong I bow to his correction and apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House. I understand—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that matter, which has no relevance to the Amendment. Will he please confine his remarks to the Amendment?

Mr. Lewis: My remarks are relevant because if I inadvertently made an untrue statement it is right that I should correct it and apologise to the House for inadvertently making a statement which I now know not to be true—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but if he has made a false statement which is irrelevant it is not relevant for him to correct it. Will the hon. Member make clear whether he is speaking for or against the Amendment and stick strictly to the Amendment?

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, but I must repeat that I am completely in order—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Minister gave no good, sound, logical reasons why I should support the Amendment. I was going on to say that because the hon. and gallant Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already said that once or twice. He must not repeat himself.

Mr. Lewis: I was going on to say that the hon Gentleman gave me a reason why I might be able to change my view and support the Amendment. Had the Minister in introducing the Amendment given me a good reason for supporting it, there would have been no need for me to take part in the debate. Had he told me the trade union was in favour of it, I would have accepted it.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I intend to make only a brief contribution to the debate on Lords Amendment No. 2. I began by putting down a Motion disagreeing

with it. I did so because I feared that we might be denied an opportunity even to debate it otherwise. As the evening progressed, it was my intention not to oppose the Amendment after all because, having studied it with care, I saw that it meets points put to the House by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), who were speaking on behalf of a particular group of workers. It was, therefore, my intention to give a general welcome to the Amendment and ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
But since the Government have decided that they want to truncate debate on these important matters, I am going to recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends, as a protest rather than from any desire to defeat the Amendment, to record our complete abhorrence of the procedure which has been adopted in respect of Lords Amendment No. 1 by dividing the House on Lords Amendment No. 2 and also on Lords Amendment No. 3, which, I understand, Mr. Speaker, you are allowing us the opportunity to vote upon.

Mr. Ridley: I pointed out to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that Lords Amendment No. 2 results from several discussions between my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, the trade union concerned, and from pressure put on the Government at an earlier stage by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). If the Opposition wish to vote against it, they will do so in the full knowledge that they will be voting against what the staff side requested of the House, and I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they support the Amendment.

Mr. Kaufman: The Under-Secretary of State says, with some validity—and I shall not join my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby on the Amendment—that the trade union concerned put forward a valid point of view and that we should take its advice. Yet for several weeks now we have been forced through the Division Lobbies night after night in defence of the liberties of the trade unions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not arise on this Amendment.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—


The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 3.




Division No. 220.]
AYES
[12.20 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pink, R. Bonner


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Havers, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Atkins, Humphrey
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Blaker, Peter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hunt, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boscawen, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Bray, Ronald
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brewis, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kinsey, J. R.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Knox, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Soref, Harold


Churchill, W. S.
Longden, Gilbert
Speed, Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Clegg, Walter
McLaren, Martin
Sproat, Iain


Cockeram, Eric
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cormack, Patrick
Mather, Carol
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maude, Angus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Dixon, Piers
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sutcliffe, John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Eden, Sir John
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Fidler, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Money, Ernle
Thompson,Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Fortescue, Tim
Monks, Mrs. Connie
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fowler, Norman
Monro, Hector
Warren, Kenneth


Fox, Marcus
More, Jasper
Weatherill, Bernard


Gibson-Watt, David
Heave, Airey
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhew, Victor
Normanton, Tom
Younger, Hn. George


Gower, Raymond
Nott, John



Gray, Hamish
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Green, Alan
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Gummer, Selwyn
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)





NOES



Janner, Greville




Oswald, Thomas




Sillars, James




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. James Wellbeloved and




Mr. Eric Deakins.

Lords Amendment: No. 3 in page 19, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Division No. 221.]
AYES
[12.26 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boscawen, Robert
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bray, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)


Atkins, Humphrey
Brewis, John
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Blaker, Peter
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Chichester-Clark, R.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Churchill, W. S.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 2.

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cockeram, Eric
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dixon, Piers
Longden, Gilbert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
MacArthur, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eden, Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Sharpies, Richard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fidler, Michael
Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maude, Angus
Soref, Harold


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Speed, Keith


Fowler, Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spence, John


Fox, Marcus
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Sproat, Iain


Gibson-Watt, David
Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Molyneaux, James
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Goodhew, Victor
Money, Ernie
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gower, Raymond
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sutcliffe, John


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Green, Alan
More, Jasper
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gummer, Selwyn
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Normanton, Tom
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Havers, Michael
Osborn, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hornby, Richard
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Warren, Kenneth


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Worsley, Marcus


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton
Younger, Hn. George


James, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jopling, Michael
Redmond, Robert
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Kilfedder,James
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.




NOES



Janner, Greville




Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. James Wellbeloved and




Mr. Eric Deakins.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House has shown itself willing to waive its Privileges in respect of Lords Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I shall see that entries are made in the Journal to that effect.

WELFARE FOOD

12.35 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Welfare Food (Extension of Definition) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.—[Mr. Alison.]

Mr. James Wellbeloved: It is a matter of regret that the Government and the Minister at the Box have not thought fit to explain this Order in a little more detail. It really will not do for the Government, night after night, to present business to this House in such a slack and almost unconstitutional manner. The House is entitled to an explanation of this Order and I hope to be able to put a limited number of questions to the Under-Secretary.

When the hon. Gentleman comes to reply, I hope that he will show the House and democracy a little more care and courtesy—

Mr. Michael Jopling: Humbug!

Mr. Wellbeloved: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene in a normal parliamentary and dignified manner by standing, then I will resume my seat and allow him to intervene. He, of all people, ought to be showing the House a little more care and courtesy than sitting there, imitating his Leader the Prime Minister, and confining his political argument to hole in the cheek political jibes across this Chamber. The hon. Member seems to think that the House is discussing humbugs and sweets for children. We are, in fact, discussing vitamins A, D and C combined in liquid form and considering whether it is appropriate to include the definition,
, vitamins A, D and C combined in liquid form".
in Section 4(2) of the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964.


Under Section 4 of that Act, a number of welfare foods are set out, such as liquid milk, dried milk, concentrated orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin tablets and now, I assume because of some development in the process of manufacture, it is possible for the vitamins to be provided in liquid form. I should have liked the House to be in possession of some knowledge of what this means, but as the Under-Secretary has decided not to give us information—

Mr. Michael English: I understand that at least one of these vitamins is a solid at normal temperatures, and I am wondering whether my hon. Friend will address himself to the possibility that this wording may be inaccurate. It is of course possible to put a solid in a solution, but I am not certain whether it is possible for at least one of these vitamins to be in liquid form at any normal temperature.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am indebted to my hon. Friend. We shall require the Under-Secretary to deal with that point, because if the Order is incorrectly drafted and he cannot give a satisfactory explanation I shall have no hesitation in recommending to my hon. Friends that we divide on this Order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not wish to divide, because he can surely suggest to the Under-Secretary that he takes the Order away and reconsiders and amends it. My hon. Friend does not have to force a vote after a debate. After my hon. Friend has put his legitimate point, he can surely ask the Minister to take the Order away and bring it back again later.

Mr. Wellbeloved: We can ask the Privileges in respect of Lords Amend-of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I am not hopeful that we shall get any help at all from any Minister of this Government.
On the surface, this seems a highly desirable Instrument. Normally, I would not oppose such an Order. However, unless we receive an adequate explanation from the Government, I will have no alternative but urge my hon. Friends to oppose it. What is the advantage of having vitamins A, D and C in liquid form as opposed to tablets? Will vitamins

in this form for children, expectant mothers and others, entitled to receive welfare foods be palatable? What tests have been made to ensure that, in this form, they will not have an obnoxious taste or tend to make children sick?

Mr. Thomas Swain: Is my hon. Friend aware of the greater danger of giving an overdose of a liquid, particularly during the hours of darkness, than of tablets?

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Pills can more easily be touched and counted by mum in the dark when giving a dose of vitamins to a child. In other words, there would appear to be more chance of people being given an overdose of liquid.

Mr. David Stoddart: It is obvious that my hon. Friend has not had much experience of giving vitamin pills to babies. As the father of a 14-month old baby, I assure him that it is difficult to administer a pill without holding the baby's nose, and this is quite unpleasant for the baby. Vitamin drops, on the other hand, are much easier to administer. I hope, therefore, that he will not oppose the Order, at any rate not on the basis on which he has spoken so far.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am obliged for that intervention, which came from an hon. Member who has had first-hand experience. He gave the sort of details that should have been given by the Minister. I do not have my hon. Friend's knowledge of these matters. My three children were all healthy, bouncing babies who, taking after their father, did not need these stimulants to growth. I particularly recall my eldest's lusty voice, which he no doubt also inherited from his father. But I must not stray out of order. I have asked the Minister one or two questions and I hope that we shall have proper answers.
What is the anticipated demand for these vitamins in their new liquid form? It would be unfortunate if the Government, in pursuing such a Scrooge policy in respect of many other welfare benefits and considerations, found that a great expense had been involved in research, production and distribution of these vitamins without a proper evaluation of the likely demand arising from those persons likely to want them. We need some


satisfaction on that question before we can agree to the Order.
Another matter is the cost to the recipient of this new form of liquid vitamins. Before we pass the Order, are we to be told whether there will be any cost or whether the vitamins in the new concentrated, combined liquid form will be free? What is the position? What will be the cost to the expectant mother and the taxpayer? We must know these things because we do not trust the Government.
We may find that we are agreeing to a variation of a statute by the inclusion of the words
vitamins A, D and C combined in liquid form
in Section 4 of the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act, 1964, only to find that we have agreed to the Government's intention of imposing yet a further excessive charge upon the welfare facilities of the nation. We want assurance on that matter.
I am surprised, on an Order which not only concerns England but also Scotland and Wales, that no Welsh Minister is present. I am delighted to see a Scottish Minister, who, I assume, has dragged himself away from the most important events taking place in the Scottish Grand Committee, because we need to know a little about the application of the Order to Scotland. He ought to be telling the House whether the Order will apply in Scotland in the same manner as it is intended that it shall apply in England.
If the Secretary of State for Wales or one of his underlings had been present, we should have also wanted to know about the application of the Order to the Principality. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) asks if we have a Secretary of State for Wales. We see him occasionally in the House. I understand from my hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies that Wales sees him only infrequently. He is omitting his duty. If he has been to Wales only 20 times since he has been Secretary of State, that is unsatisfactory. But I must not stray along those paths.
I hope that my hon. Friends will join with me in exploring the implications of the Order. If the reply from the Parliamentary Secretary is unsatisfactory, I will

recommend to my hon. Friends that we divide on this Order, primarily not because we shall be against the Order—it is for entirely desirable purposes; I want that clearly stated on the record—but because of the disgraceful conduct of the Patronage Secretary in trying to stifle free speech in this Parliament by the injudicious exercise of the closure. On this and other measures we must protest against that sort of dictatorial, undemocratic behaviour. Unless there are some very good explanations from the Parliamentary Secretary, it will be in protest against the Government's stifling of free speech in Parliament that I shall vote, and not whether it is desirable or undesirable—we have yet to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary—to insert those words in the Emergency Laws (Reenactments and Repeals) Act, 1964.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. Bob Brown: A number of liquid vitamins are supplied in capsule form. Is the new liquid preparation of vitamins A, D and C to be supplied M. and at C.W. centres in capsule form or in some other form of container? Whether or not it is to be in capsule form, what is to be the type of container? If the liquid is dispensed in the non-returnable type of bottle made of very fine glass, the question of pollution of the environment arises. In the vicinity of welfare clinics there is the danger of grave injury occurring to small children. If the liquid is to be dispensed in plastic containers, there is again the dreadful problem of pollution of the environment. I hope that the Minister and his advisors will address their minds to this question and tell the House what the Government's proposals are.
I support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) that liquid would be the easiest way of administering vitamins to young children. We all know the desirability of administering this type of vitamin to young children and of the great success of the welfare food scheme. We on this side regret the way the scheme has been mercilessly butchered over the years by Tory Governments.
In Newcastle the reactionary local authority is closing welfare clinics as fast as it can. In view of the prevalence of such local authorities, is the Minister satisfied that the type of expenditure


which will be necessary as a result of the House agreeing to the Order will be justified, if it is so difficult for mothers to take their children long distances to clinic because of the closure of so many clinics in places like Newcastle?

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown), I do not intend to speak at great length. But I was very surprised that the Minister did not take the trouble to do what has been the custom for many years, namely, to give the House some reasons for the Order when he introduced it, telling us why the Government feel that hon. Members should allow it to go through. The House does not like taking a long time debating matters if the explanation is given at the beginning. Having heard the explanation, hon. Members usually do not have to put the points that they have to put when the Minister has not troubled to explain the Order. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) is to be congratulated upon his skill and ability in bringing these matters to the attention of the House so that we can know the object of the Order.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am greatly assisted in this matter by my determination and that of many of my hon. Friends to stop the Government trying to stifle free speech in the House.

Mr. David James: On a point of order, on the question of free speech. I have clear evidence from many of my constituents that they are now reluctant to ask me to meetings to discuss problems with them. I even know that they are reluctant to ring me up because they feel that the hours to which we are being subjected by the Opposition's tactics are such as to make it unreasonable to impose on my weekends. If the democratic process is being upset it is being upset very much more by our not having an opportunity to have a dialogue with our constituents because of these endless dialogues in the House at this time of night.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to the point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are interesting matters. I may have some

sympathy, but they are not points of order.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a fresh point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? The Order Paper contains nine items of business put down by the Government. Will you confirm that each is entitled to receive the full scrutiny of Parliament under our Parliamentary system, and that it is the democratic and Parliamentary function of hon. Members to scrutinise matters which are put down on the Order Paper by the Government? If there is any inconvenience to staff or hon. Members, that inconvenience must surely lie with those who put down at such a late hour such a large amount of business.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with order. The hon. Member may or may not be right in what he has said, but it is not a point of order. Let us get on with the debate on the Motion.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: On a point of order. Although the House may well become accustomed to these time-wasting activities, are there not in this building still many dozens of members of the staff who deserve a night's sleep? Could not some action be taken to ensure that at least some of them can go home and be freed from this time-wasting activity?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Lewis: I am very surprised by these points of order, because I started by explaining that if the Minister would only treat the House with the courtesy it has had for the past 28 years, by explaining why the Government are introducing the Order as this time of night, the situation would have been different. We did not put the Orders down. We do not ask for Statutory Instruments to come on for debate at 10, 11, 12 or one o'clock. That is the Government's responsibility. The Government are responsible for keeping the House sitting late at night. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) was present, but I was, when the Minister said, "I beg to move"—and that was all. He never said what he begged to move. He did not take the trouble, as some Ministers do, of reading out the Order and saying


that he was moving it on behalf of the Government. He jumped up and sat down. Hence, we have to ask questions which might have been dealt with if the Minister had explained the Order.

Mr. David James: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe that he is not wasting the House's time when twice in 10 days he speaks consecutively for one hour and 25 minutes and one hour and 45 minutes on subjects about which his information is strictly limited?

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The matter raised by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) does not arise on this debate.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Cannot you, Mr. Speaker, protect hon. Members on this side of the House who are performing their parliamentary duties within the rules of order—otherwise you would call us to order—from these unwarranted attacks by hon. Members opposite? This is not a rubber stamp Parliament. We ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker, against unfounded allegations by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member needs any protection.

Mr. Lewis: I do not need protection, Mr. Speaker. However, if an hon. Member makes a statement which is knowingly untrue I must not call him a liar because that would be unparliamentary, but I can ask him to withdraw. The hon. Member for Dorset, North said that consecutively I made speeches of an hour and 45 minutes and an hour and 25 minutes. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that statement because it is not true.

Mr. David James: I will willingly withdraw the word "consecutively". On the question of the length of his speeches. I refer the hon. Gentleman to HANSARD.

Mr. Lewis: Again the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, but I will not debate the matter because it is not worth wasting time on it. I have not made two speeches consecutively of that length of time, although I might have made two speeches of that length in the last 20 years.

Mr. Bob Brown: My hon. Friend has been critical of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security and has referred to his lack of courtesy; but we all accept that the Under-Secretary is a kind and courteous man. I implore my hon. Friend to realise that the hon. Gentleman moved the Order briefly because he had been "got at" by someone in authority, possibly the Patronage Secretary, who said, "Do not waste time moving the Order. Introduce it briefly". I implore my hon. Friend to concede that the Under-Secretary is courteous.

Mr. Lewis: I did not allege that the Minister was not courteous. I said that he never treated the House with the usual courtesy of Ministers over the years by explaining the necessity for the Order. That is a statement of fact. I do not doubt that the Under-Secretary is very courteous, but he introduced the Order in a very perfunctory fashion without giving any reasons for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West gave the reason. He said that the Patronage Secretary had got at the Minister and told him not to take time in debating this matter. But my hon. Friend should know that it is not the job of Members of this House to be dictated to by anybody. I would not allow the Patronage Secretary or any other hon. Member to tell me what to do in this House. The Minister is responsible to the House, and he should explain to the House why he on behalf of the Government wants this Order to go through.
The Government for weeks past have been holding the House in contempt by trying to get their legislation through without explanation. They do not even allow discussion. Before my hon. Friend even finishes making a short speech, he is closured. This matter should be closely looked at.
The Order says that:
there shall be inserted 'vitamins A, D and C combined in liquid form'.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West, mentioned a glass bottle or plastic container to take the vitamins in liquid form. There are things that could be said either in favour or to their detriment of both sorts of container, but I will not go into details since that might be repetitious. A means of amalgamating the old principle with


the new would be to have the liquid in a gelatine capsule form. This would overcome the difficulty of a mother in knowing whether she was giving the correct dosage, and she would be able to follow the same method as hitherto; namely, picking out the right number of capsules which would be clearly marked as to dosage.
I want to know what "vitamins A, D and C combined in liquid form" means. Does it mean that the three always go together? Does it mean they could be split into pairs, vitamin A with vitamin C, vitamin C with vitamin D, and so on? There is no clear explanation of that point.
There is then the question of the cost. We know the present Government have declared that they want to cut Government expenditure. The first bit of expenditure they have cut is in regard to the welfare services, and, as we expected, they have made a savage attack on those services.

Mr. Ernle Money: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member For West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has now raised the question of the welfare services. May I address to you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order which I raised with Mr. Deputy Speaker, some 10 days ago? [Interruption.] I am glad that this is a matter for amusement for the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). I hope that this will be taken note of by his constitutents? The House will know that on the Motion for the Adjournment my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Riddsdale) seeks to raise the subject of the mass X-ray services. Many hon. Members are hoping to address themselves to that subject. I hope that the hon. Member, who has taken up so many hours of the time of the House with such tedious repetition over the last few weeks, will give other Members of the House the opportunity to exercise the right of back benchers to speak

Mr. Speaker: That was not a point of order, and I am afraid that that kind of intervention only lengthens proceedings.

Mr. Lewis: You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that I have never moved the closure or attempted to stop debate. I would not have the power or authority

to do so. I happen to know procedure and how the House of Commons fuctions. I advise the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) not to waste time here but to go and read the Standing Orders. He will then see that it is not possible to amend this Order, if that should be his intention. I do not know whether it is. I do not think he can know what he is talking about.
I repeat that this Goverment have attacked the social services. They have attacked the Welfare State and have said that they will cut Government expenditure. I ask whether their attacks on the welfare services are to save money at the expense of the poor, sick and the disabled, and will cost more or less. I want an assurance whether this will mean more or less to be spent on welfare services concerning these items. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some figures, or at least estimates, on what the cost has been up to now and what it may be if vitamins A, D and C are combined in liquid form.
It has not been made clear whether there will be extra charges to the recipients of these combined vitamins in liquid form. If there is an additional charge, to what extent will that save Exchequer grants and money from the Treasury? Is this a method by which the Government intend to save public expenditure at the expense of welfare foods? As these vitamins are considered under food and drugs, I suppose that I am in order in describing them as food. I know that they are very necessary, and I would not want to do anything which would prevent their being supplied to those who need them.
Like you, Mr. Speaker, I am old enough to remember the days, not far distant, when we had a Tory Government and many kiddies suffered through the want of these vitamins. In the school I went to about a third of the children had their legs in irons because of malnutrition and rickets. They never had enough food, let alone vitamins. I am glad that a Labour Government introduced the welfare foods scheme; now one rarely sees kiddies with their legs in irons. If there is to be a charge we shall be back to the bad old days.
How will these vitamins be supplied? It used to be possible to get them from


the local health offices and offices associated with the Ministry of Social Security. The Government have been cutting down on these for economic reasons, and my constituents have to travel a long way to get to the town hall or the health office. Originally my constituents had to take a bus ride which cost ld. to 2d. but now prices have risen considerably and mothers who have perhaps two children to take with them find that it is a real problem. I am sure that my hon. Friends who have rambling urban constituencies experience similar problems.
If my constituents want to get the new vitamins A, D and C in a combined liquid form, will the Minister make it possible for them to have their fares paid or for them to receive some financial aid or will these tablets, or capsules, be made available at any office of the Ministry of Social Security?

Mr. Wellbeloved: Since mothers go to Post Offices to collect their welfare benefits for children, would it not be a good idea for the Government, first of all, to get the post offices open again by meeting the justifiable demands of the postmen, and then make provision for these vitamins to be available to mothers there?

Mr. Lewis: That is a good point. I wish that my hon. Friend had made it in his speech because it would have avoided delay in my own.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Perhaps after my hon. Friend has ended I may succeed in catching Mr. speaker's eye again and thus be able, by leave of the House, to raise this.

Mr. Lewis: That is one way of supplying these vitamins. There is no reason why they cannot be made available, in my constituency at least, through the co-operative stores. The West Ham Co-op was the foundation of the Co-op movement in London. We have a number of co-operative stores and chemists shops associated with the L.C.S. It would be ideal if the Minister could make these vitamins available at any reputable organisation—post offices, chemists' shops, drug stores, doctors.
I do not think that vitamins A, D and C can be dangerous, either individually or

in a combined form, even if taken in excessive doses. If that is so, they might be made available at schools. Teachers perform many extraneous duties, and I do not think they would object to this.
We have not been told whether the vitamins will be freely available, whether there will be a charge for them or what the procedure will be. Hence, I ask the Minister for more information before deciding whether to support my hon. Friend in a vote.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend has drawn my attention to the fact that 1 brought forward in my intervention a point which would be useful. If I were to seek the leave of the House to speak again and that leave were refused, am I correct in saying that there is a Standing Order which would enable me to ask the House to divide on the question whether I should have leave to speak again?

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of any such Standing Order.

1.21 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I extend a brief words of thanks to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) for his kindness in leaping to my defence on the charge made by one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite that I was discourteous. I assure the House that no discourtesy was intended. I have noticed a certain willingness of hon. Members on the benches opposite to express themselves, and I thought that the courteous thing to do, assuming that hon. Members knew the relevant background information on the Order—as the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) showed he did—was to let hon. Members make their points, which I could then consider, without boring them with an initial statement, thus allowing them more opportunity to speak. I hope the House will acquit me of any charge of discourtesy. It is quite obvious that hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), knew all the basic details abou the family life of those who have
children—

Mr. Wellbeloved: The Under-Secretary of State is most courteous in what he has


just said. Had he said in moving the Order those few words about giving hon. Members an opportunity to speak so that he might reply to them, we would have accepted that. It was because he was so brief and did not put those courteous words in at the beginning that the strictures were made. We withdraw those strictures in view of what the hon. Gentleman has now said.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford for those kind words. It is a fine point whether I should have made reference to the automatic expectation that hon. Gentlemen opposite would want to say a few words on these matters.
Perhaps I may now come to the important points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am grateful to them for the sympathetic consideration which they have given to these necessary provisions which we are hoping to make. I confirm that we are seeking to make provision for a more palatable form of the means of ingesting these vital vitamins so necessary for the health of our children. We naturally thought, as some hon. Members have suggested, that the way to provide a palatable form of the combination of vitamins A, D and C might be by the method of the pill. Indeed, one might also add the method of the plastic capsule which the hon. Member for West Ham, North, with his extensive experience of these family matters, suggested quite properly might he one of the options.
However, we were troubled to discover that there were real hazards in the provision of pills through the accidental swallowing of them by children—the inhaling, to use the technical term, which might result in choking. We were, therefore, put at some pains to see whether it was not possible to formulate a liquid version of the combination of these three vital vitamins. I am happy to tell the House that our reseachers and chemists have succeeded in devising a satisfactory liquid form of these vital vitamins which will have no hazard or danger.
I assure the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), in his absence, that there is no tendency, as far as I know, for this liquid to solidify once successfully reduced to liquid form. Once liquid, like many excellent things in the same realm, it remains liquid.
One or two points have been made about the actual form in which the liquid will be dispensed. I am happy to show the House, if it is in order, this little specimen of how the liquid will be provided. Some discussion was stimulated by the hon. Member for West Ham, North and other hon. Members, including the lion. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West, as to the options between glass containers and plastic containers. I am happy to tell the House that in this significant little dispenser we have been able to combine the two. We have here a plastic top and a very satisfactory glass bottle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am also happy to tell the House—again reassuring the hon. Member for West Ham, North—that if one empties the complete contents of one of these bottles down a baby's throat, it will do it no harm whatever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is better, of course, to take it in individual drop form if possible.
For the benefit of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), who, against a background of ten children and, therefore, wide experience in these matters—

Mr. Swain: Which is more than some hon. Members opposite can say.

Mr. Alison: —wondered whether there would be any hazard or unpleasantness for children in taking these drops, I assure him that one of the advantages of drops over pills or any other substitute is that one can pour them into milk, corn flakes or any of the other food forms which children take and, therefore, their taste entirely disappears in the food.
One or two other points have been made on general matters to do with costs, charges and so on. The hon. Member for West Ham, North made a suggestion about schools. In fact, the provision of food of these kinds is only for children up to the age of five, so the point about the schools does not arise.
So far as charges are concerned, I think that the House will remember that welfare foods in this category have long been retailed by the Government at cost price to mothers and parents of families, except for needy families or extremely large families. The cost of these drops will work out a great deal less than anything


which has preceded them. A 13-weeks' supply—two bottles—will cost mothers 10p.
It is difficult to estimate the likely cost to the Government because there are a number of imponderables about take-up, demand, and so on. But the various foods being replaced roughly cost the Government in their time about £30,000 a year, so we are not talking about a very large sum of money. Apart from the circumstances operating in the case of needy families or particularly large families, these foods will, like the preceding products, be retailed by the Government at cost price. They will be available, like many of the items which preceded them, at health clinics, local authority distribution centres, W.R.V.S. centres and hospitals.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Would the Under-Secretary take comfort from the fact that, in view of the courteous, generous and detailed way in which he has replied to the debate, it will not be my intention to encourage my hon. Friends to divide on the Order? He has redeemed the position which was created by the Patronage Secretary, and we shall reserve our wrath for Orders which are yet to come before the House.

Mr. Alison: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those sympathetic words. I would disclaim all credit for myself. I am sure that what we are all thinking of is the little infants in arms.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: As one who has not yet uttered a word tonight, mainly because I want to speak on a later Order, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell his right hon. Friends the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House that it would facilitate the House's receiving the kind of reasonable explanation which he has just given if in future we did not have to debate nine matters, some of the greatest importance, in this way, which is an abuse of the House?

Mr. Alison: I hesitate to stray from the non-controversial ground on which I have been treading so confidently up to now to comment on that point, but I am sure that it will be noted in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Welfare Food (Extension of Definition) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.

AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL CO-OPERATION SCHEME

1.32 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move,
That the Agricultural and Horticultural Cooperation Scheme 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
It gives me a certain amount of relief to see the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) depart, and to reflect that his wrath, which was being reserved for a later Instrument, is not, I hope, being reserved for this one.
Before describing the effect of this new Scheme I would like to give the House a short account of how the present Scheme has worked during the three years since it began.
Over 1,000 applications have been put in, and these have resulted in £2·8m of grants being approved, some £900,000 of these being for buildings and fixed equipment. The balance has been given mainly for working capital, feasibility studies, the employment and training of managers and formation costs.
Over 400 new co-operatives have been established covering a wide variety of enterprises and commodities. It may be of interest to the House to know that of the total grants paid England received £2·m; Wales £130,000; Scotland £275,000, and Northern Ireland £262,000, which shows how receptive to the principle of co-operation farmers everywhere have been.
It is always essential to pay account to experience, and what has been learned in the last three years has shown that some changes are needed. First, fixed capital grants under the existing Cooperation Scheme are at a maximum rate of 33⅓ per cent. The equivalent grants to individuals are now at higher levels—40 per cent. for agriculture and 35 per cent. for horticulture.


In the Government's view, there is no rational basis for this distinction between co-operatives and individuals. The new Scheme provides a maximum rate of 40 per cent. for capital grants.
Eligible co-operatives will receive grants of 40 per cent. for items covered by the Farm Capital Grant Scheme and 35 per cent. for items covered by the Horticulture Improvement Scheme. In short, they will benefit by getting the same treatment as individual producers. Secondly, the new Scheme leaves out the existing provision for grants of working capital to co-operatives for such items as machinery, livestock and operating costs.
These grants have helped to arouse interest in co-operation, but I think that that particular objective has been met. This has been very largely due to the enthusiasm of those who have served on bodies like the Central Council and the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, and I found my opinion on the way in which I have seen and heard many of them going about their job.
The Council will in future concentrate on advice and demonstration to illustrate the advantages and techniques of co-operation.
The working capital grants were not available to individuals—

Mr. Thomas Swain: Can the hon. Gentleman say what will be the capital effect of the withdrawal of these grants in toto on the Government?

Mr. Stodart: I shall be coming to that point, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
Those grants tended to put a premium on co-operation, and this led to a certain amount of co-operation merely for the sake of getting a grant.
I am a very strong advocate of farmers co-operating with one another although there are any number of practical difficulties to be overcome. But cooperation is a serious undertaking, and farmers must think very carefully in the light of their own circumstances whether it is a worthwhile proposition for its own sake. There are obvious dangers in distorting investment appraisal, and that is why it is important to maintain parity of treatment between individuals and co-operatives.
It is for these same reasons that the special rate of grant for co-operative projects of a pioneering character has been dropped from the new Scheme. There have been very few grants of this kind, but they have been extremely expensive. The danger with high rates of grant is that they tend to diminish the personal responsibility which is vital in co-operative ventures, and it has been difficult to be sure just what constitutes pioneering at a time when so many developments in co-operation are taking place.
The new Scheme continues the remaining grants for managerial salaries, management training, formation expenses, surveys, studies and research. These are grants which are particularly relevant to the needs of co-operatives rather than individuals. They are closely bound up with the Council's general rôle of encouraging worthwhile and efficient co-operative development.
In addition, the Council will be able to give particular assistance for encouraging co-operation in marketing. I recall saying in answer to a supplementary question in the House some weeks ago that one sphere in which co-operation in marketing is of vital importance is horticulture where a small proportion of produce is at this stage marketed co-operatively. I believe that this could be of tremendous help to the horticulture industry.
Lastly, the new Scheme does not renew the special provisions for co-operation among small producers. These special provisions were hardly ever used, and I believe that they led to administrative complexity. But the Council can still assist co-operation among small producers under its general powers.
The remaining changes in the Scheme are aimed merely at simplifying the administrative machinery, which experience has shown to be unnecessarily cumbersome. These new arrangements will enable the Departments to handle rather more of the routine work through their existing organisations, and the Council will in turn be able to devote increased resources to what is so important for it—its promotional rôle.
I am glad that the new Scheme has the support of the Central Council, which I think has done a splendid job. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing


the Government's thanks to the Chairman, Sir Roger Falk, to the members of the Council, and to the chairmen of the Council panels who carry the heavy responsibility of administering the Scheme.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) asked me about the cost of something to which I referred. I think that it would be tidier if I asked my hon. Friend who will be replying to the debate to give this answer. No doubt I could find it if I searched the copious notes with which my Department has provided me, but I think that would be the tidier way.
I commend the Scheme to the House.

1.42 a.m.

Mr. Michael Barnes: We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the explanation which he has given of the new Scheme and the account which he has given of the way that the existing Scheme has been working.
We certainly welcome the revised Scheme so far as it raises the rates of grant on the items which it covers to bring them into line with what is now paid to individuals under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, 1970, and the Farm Capital Grant Scheme, 1970. But we are very concerned that the provision for grants for working capital, which was in the original Scheme introduced by the Labour Government in 1967, is not to be re-enacted. This was announced in the White Paper presented to the House in January, Command 4564. We took the view then that many of the cuts in those proposed changes in the White Paper were rather parsimonious and short-sighted. But we were told that it was part of the Government's new philosophy that farmers, like everybody else. must be encouraged to be self-reliant and must stand on their own feet.
One intriguing point about the Government, if it is not straying too far from the Scheme, is the way that they mix in philosophy with practical politics. There can surely have been few White Papers on agriculture in recent times—perhaps at any time—in which the word "philosophy" reoccurs so often as in this one. However, I should be the last person to

complain about philosophers straying into politics, because I am sure that the world would become more civilised as a result.
Concerning co-operatives, one would think that the right philosophy for these grants would be to lay off the grants where co-operation was proving successful and co-operatives were standing on their own feet, but to keep going with the grants where further help was needed. What the Government are doing by discontinuing the grants for working capital is to take away the help from where it is most needed, because last year half the grants made by the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation went to small farmers in the West Country, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Council may have started with the bigger people, and the objectives may have been successfully achieved with the bigger people, as the Parliamentary Secretary claimed. But after the third year of operation the Council seems to have reached the point of concentrating its help on smaller co-operatives. Another point which we criticise is the short notice of the cancellation of these grants, because this has put the Council in the position of not being able to meet in full all its commitments for grants for working capital.
But, looking at the positive side, we welcome the part that the other capital grants are going to play in promoting more co-operative production, especially more co-operative marketing. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, in horticulture there will be very stiff competition to be met if the negotiations for this country to enter the European Economic Community are successful, because so much of the competition that we have to face in horticulture comes from Europe rather than from the rest of the world. We can help our own horticulture industry to become more competitive only by encouraging it to achieve a higher level of sophistication in production and, especially, in marketing; and it is Schemes of this kind which help to do that So, while we welcome the increased rates of the other grants, we emphasise that we think it is a mistake for the Government to drop these grants for working capital, most of which at the present time seem to be going to the smaller people who most need help with their co-operative ventures.

1.47 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: This is an important Order, and we on this side believe it is unfortunate that it should have been introduced in the small hours of the morning in this way. Our objection is not so much to what is contained in the Order, but to what is omitted therefrom.
I have three brief points to make. First, it is most significant, as my hon. Friend has said, that this Scheme omits the provision for working capital. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say when he touched on this matter that this does not exclude small farmers, but the last paragraph of the Explanatory Note on page 7 states:
This Scheme does not re-enact the specific provisions in the 1967 Scheme relating to grants for working capital, for pioneering in new aspects of co-operation or for individual small producers.
It must, therefore, be clear that small producers, who were included from 1967 to the present day, are excluded from this Scheme.
We on this side were singularly unimpressed by the justification put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. He defended his position with very great charm and with his usual ingenuity, but, for all his fertility of mind and subtlety of thinking in this matter, he failed to make out a credible case. He said that because the number of persons who had taken advantage of these Schemes was small—and he did not give the actual number, so I should be most grateful if the Under-Secretary could give us that information when he is winding-up—then it must be clear that the objective had been achieved. I cannot think of anything less of a non sequitur in this situation.
The basis of our objection is not so much what is contained in this Instrument as the fact that this appears to be yet another instance of discrimination on the part of the Government against small farmers and small units. When we discussed another agricultural provision in December of last year the Under-Secretary of State made it clear that it was the Government's aim to drastically reduce the number of small agricultural holdings.
It is still not clear to us why the Government have adopted this philosophy. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite

argue that there is a basic unproductiveness in the small farming enterprise? If so, they seem to be wrong. The evidence shows that the income per acre on a small farm is higher than the average income per acre on the larger units. I have on more than one occasion quoted pertinent figures and they have not been challenged.
Or have the Government an obsession to conform with the European pattern? As with levies, there appears to be a frantic determination on the part of the Government to pay the price of entry into the Community even before we have entered and irrespective of whether or not we enter. In any event, it seems to be the motive of the Government to destroy rural communities. As one who represents a rural constituency and who appreciates that the present trends lead in the direction of making the rural communities deserted areas which might be used as playgrounds for people who want to get away from the busy cities at the weekends, I regard this as an absolutely abhorrent development. The overtones in this Instrument are economically unsound and socially unjust.
The Farm Capital Grant Scheme, 1970, is referred to in the Instrument and there is a list of works and facilities which are eligible for the 40 per cent. grant, including the destruction of cover for rabbits, whether or not it is on agricultural land. I cannot understand why, the Government having done away with the 50 per cent. grant that was paid to rabbit clearance societies, they consider that this matter is so important that a 40 per cent. grant should be payable. Was there an oversight on the part of Government draftsmen, did the matter slip the Minister's mind or has there been a radical reappraisal of the situation, in which case are these clearance societies to receive the grant which they got hitherto?
My third point is on paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Farm Capital. Grants Scheme, 1970, which reads:
Provision, replacement or improvement of roads, fords, bridges, culverts, railway crossings, creeps"—
whatever those might be—
piers, jetties or slips.
I refer in particular to roads. As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, on a


number of occasions I have put Questions to him on the provision of more adequate finance for farm roads. I have been lavish in my praise of the legislation for which a previous Conservative Administration was responsible, the Act of 1955, which I believe lasted for a limited term of seven years. It brought great benefits to the farming community. My point is that a great deal of this work remains to be completed. Now, with more and more milk producers having their milk collected by bulk tank collection, it is all the more vitally necessary that farms should be served by adequate roads.
As the representative of a rural community, one of my most frustrating experiences is to receive scores of letters in the course of a year from farmers who want the county council to adopt unclassified roads which serve their farms and are open to the public. It is well known that the limited finances of local authorities which operate in my part of the country are such as to allow only perhaps one out of very 10 or even 20 applications to be favourably regarded.
I put down a Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales a few weeks ago, asking what proposals he had for more adequate finance to meet what is a genuine need in the countryside and a need strongly felt by the agricultural community, and I was told that he had no proposals in this direction. I hope that the Minister will say exactly how extensive is this provision about roads in paragraph 7 of Schedule 2. Does he envisage that this provision could be used to provide the finance which I have mentioned in relation to this most deserving heading of expenditure?
Those are my three points, and I should be very grateful if the Minister would give a full and detailed reply on each of them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just been for some refreshment and to attend to the wants of nature. A number of my hon. Friends have asked me to raise with you a point of order. They wish to protest and to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you could take some action to get the Government to arrange their business differently or that you, Sir, could protect the

interests of Members of the House. Many of my hon. Friends now on the Scottish Committee wanted to take part in this debate and to hear the Parliamentary Secretary. They tell me that they cannot leave the Committee because that is meeting upstairs. They cannot be in the Committee and in the Chamber of the House. They want to be in two places at once, but that is impossible. Therefore, they asked me to raise this matter with you to see whether action could be taken to help them to undertake their duties to the House, which they wish to do, but obviously without obviating their duties to the Committee on which they are now sitting.

Mr. Speaker: That purports to be a point of order. It is not one. The arrangement of business is not for the Chair. The necessity to be in two places at once is a long-standing shortcoming attached to membership of the House.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) in deploring the fact that this important Scheme is being debated at this early hour of the morning. I must express my utter dismay at the absence yet again of the Secretary of State. Only a matter of days ago, in the debate on rural bus services, the Secretary of State's absence was commented on when a matter of such importance to Wales was being debated. Either the Government should try to get the Secretary of State here or they should change the order of business so that debates which are of concern to Wales can take place in mid-afternoon, when the Secretary of State might find it easier to be present.
Carmarthen being one of the three largest agricultural constituencies, the Scheme is of significant importance to it, especially the last sentence in the Explanatory Note which refers to what is excluded or what is not re-enacted from the 1967 Scheme. There are significant economic benefits stemming from co-operation. Many farmers have benefited from that Scheme. The Government's failure to re-enact the proposals regarding working capital and the aid and grants for small producers will hit rural communities which are far removed from markets and which it is difficult to farm.


The marginal land farmer is of great importance in the industry. A fair proportion of land in Carmarthen can be termed marginal land. The Government are taking the alarming step of removing from farmers benefits or grants which were previously available, on the pretence that such benefits were too expensive or administratively too complex. Could not a scheme affecting the small producer be so devised that the grant could be maintained for the benefit of the small producer? The administrative side, and not the farmer, should change.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that working capital had helped to arouse interest. Now that interest has been aroused and people are forming co-operatives, the Government are abolishing the grants. People did not come together out of interest. Farmers, like everybody else, desire and demand and are entitled to a fair living. One reason why farmers' interest was aroused was that the grant was available. I shall be interested in the rate of increase which occurs with the disappearance of the grant. The Government's philosophy in failing to re-enact the grant is biased yet again against rural areas, against areas far removed from the market. It is biased against areas where farming is a major part of our local community. The great argument for the small farm in rural areas is that it is the backbone of the community.
How much will the Government save? Of the £130,000 allocated to Wales, how much was in working capital and how much was in grant aid to the small producer? It would be very interesting to find out whether a proportion was geared to areas in most need. What does the Minister expect will be the effect of the failure to re-enact the Scheme? What is his forecast of the effect on co-operation? How much consultation was there with the Council? In the short time since it was set up under the previous Government the Council has done a great deal of work. Its report says that in 1969–70 288 proposals costing £4 million were approved, a significant figure. Does the Minister agree that if we enter the E.E.C. co-operation will become far more important even than it is today, certainly to rural areas?
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan referred to unclassified, unadopted

farm roads. Only last Friday at a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee of the National Farmers' Union in my county grave concern was expressed because farmers were complaining of the problem of milk lorries finding it difficult to collect milk. Farmers had had to move their point of collection because of bad road conditions.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: In addition to milk lorries, there are other very large lorries going along the lanes, carrying supplies to the farms. I face this problem more often than that of the milk lorries. The drivers, coming from distant towns, are unfamiliar with the lanes. I continually receive requests to beseech the county council to adopt such roads. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the need to adopt the unclassified roads in view of this even more important reason.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point more clearly. I am sure that our farming friends in our constituencies will be pleased that we have drawn the Government's attention, albeit at this early hour of the morning, to the great concern which exists. We must endeavour to assist the small farmer, who is the backbone of our rural communities.

2.11 a.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I, too, deplore the lateness of the hour at which we are discussing these vital matters. I regard this Scheme as the most important Statutory Instrument on the Order Paper. It is a sad commentary on the state of their business that the Government have to push through Statutory Instruments in the small hours of the morning, perhaps in the hope that not too much attention will be paid to them.
I should like to make a couple of preliminary remarks about the interpretation of the Scheme before coming to my main point. I want to make some remarks which apply to the work of the Labour Government and the work which has been done by the present Administration.
My first point relates to the definition of "appropriate Minister". I hope that my hon. Friends from Wales are listening because their attention should be drawn to the derogation of the dignity of the Welsh people and nation, if it is a nation,


involved in this definition. Paragraph 2 of the Scheme reads:
'appropriate Minister' means, in relation to any proposal originating in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in Wales, the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales acting jointly".
If that definition means anything, it means that the Secretary of State for Wales cannot be trusted to take decisions under this Scheme but must have the backing, and perhaps the connivance and agreement, of the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: It happened under the previous Government.

Mr. Deakins: That does not make it right. It should not happen. Either we have a Secretary of State for Wales who is capable of performing functions under this Scheme or we do not.

Mr. Roderick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister responsible for agriculture in Wales is a farmer and should know better than to allow this state of affairs to happen?

Mr. Deakins: I was not aware of that, and I am grateful for the information.
I do not wish to dwell on the point whether Scotland can be trusted whereas Wales cannot, but there is something funny here which I hope the Minister will explain for the benefit of new Members like myself who are not aware of the complexities of drafting Statutory Instruments.
Paragraph 1 of the Scheme says that it applies throughout the United Kingdom. But there is no mention in paragraph 2, under the definition of "appropriate Minister", of Northern Ireland. Presumably the Minister of Agriculture in England acts for Northern Ireland. I thought that constitutionally the Northern Ireland Government had a Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether he is even less to be trusted in carrying out functions under this Scheme than the Secretary of State for Wales. There seems to be a ranking order. England has a Minister; Scotland is allowed to decide for itself through the Secretary of State; in Wales the Secretary of State must consult the Minister; and in Northern Ireland the local Minister does not have any say at all.
I see on the Government Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, and the Whip with whom I have been spending happy hours debating in Committee the Rating Bill, which is concerned with the derating of intensive livestock buildings. On page 2 of the Scheme there is the following definition:
'Producer' means a producer of agricultural or horticultural produce".
Had I not been serving on the Committee on the Rating Bill, I might have taken that definition for what it was—a straightforward, succinct, concise and clear definition of a producer. But my experience in the Committee has taught me that "producer" does not always mean what it says. We have had a number of friendly discussions in that Committee on what constitutes agricultural produce. Reference has been made to the Agriculture Acts of 1947, 1957 and 1967. It seems that there is one definition for rating purposes, another in regard to the definition of "livestock", and yet another in this Scheme.
I hope the Minister will say that agricultural produce does not include animals for the production of furs or skins, meaning mink, chinchilla, and so on. Today on the Rating Bill we concluded some vigorous discussion on whether such animals were agricultural produce and, if so, whether buildings in which they were kept should qualify for derating. This is an important point.
In view of the uncertainty about the definition of agricultural produce, I hope we shall be told clearly that agricultural produce means what it says and does not include livestock as defined in the 1947 Act. Section 109 of that Act says that "livestock" means any animal kept for fur or wool or skins for commercial production.
That brings me to my main point, the definition of "co-operative". Because I was not here in 1967—I list a famous byelection—I did not have the opportunity to take part in debating the original legislation which extended widely what up to then had been generally understood to be co-operatives both in agriculture and elsewhere. Section 61 of the 1967 Act says:
The Ministers may, in accordance with a scheme made by them with the approval of the Treasury, make out of money provided by Parliament grants in connection with the carrying out by any person of proposals designed to


organise, promote, encourage, develop or coordinate any form of co-operation in agricultural or horticulture, including co-operation and mutual assistance in production, storage. preparation for market, marketing, transport.
Those words are repeated in Schedule 3 of the Scheme. The definition was too wide in 1967 and continues to be far too wide.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Perhaps I could make a non-political point and draw my hon. Friend's attention to Section 61(2) of the 1967 Act, which excludes agricultural co-operative societies which, in the eyes of many, should have been the first beneficiaries under Part IV of the Act. Far from its being too wide, it was far too narrow.

Mr. Deakins: I am grateful for that intervention, but I do not think it affects the point I am about to make. The Labour Government, wrongly in my opinion, but rightly in the opinion of Parliament at the time, decided that grants would be made to a large number of agricultural organisations which were not at the stage when the Act was passed into law by any definition agricultural cooperatives in the traditional sense. I believe the then Minister felt that there was a need to widen the field of agricultural co-operation, but the method chosen was one which meant that grants could be made through the new Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation, whose wings have since been clipped. Grants could be made not only to traditional co-operative societies but to groupings of producers which in some way could bring themselves into the definition of Section 61 to qualify for grants.
The Minister made an interesting statement. He said that grants from 1967 onward had in some cases led to cooperatives being formed for the sake of getting the grant. I have had some experience of working in agricultural marketing, and I thoroughly endorse his remarks. I think it thoroughly regrettable that the previous Administration should so have widened the definition of cooperatives as positively to have encouraged the formation of producer groups many of which, I confirm from bitter experience, came into existence solely for the purpose of obtaining Government money.
I also confirm from my experience in an agricultural marketing organisation

unconnected with the Government that whenever one offers money to producers on the basis that they must get together first to benefit from the money, they will always get together for that purpose, but whether or not they put the money to good use is very doubtful. In some cases they do, but in some they do not. It would be interesting to see after the first three years of the Labour Government Scheme, comparing the amount of money paid out with the number of organisations which benefited, exactly how many so-called groups brought within the ambit of the definition in 1967 in fact managed to survive with their own resources after the grants were withdrawn.
The grants were scaled down from a large amount in the first year, less in the second and still less in the third, and after that they were cut off. In livestock and pig marketing a large number of groups were formed for the purpose of getting the grant. They convinced the Minister and the Central Council that they would do a good job, but at the end of that time, having used most of the grants to employ a marketing officer, they had not done sufficient ground work and structuring to gain enough loyalty among their members to ensure that after the three years they could survive as viable entities. It would be interesting to know how much public money has been thrown down the drain in the three years, after which these organisations have ceased to exist. I suspect that it has been a fair amount. It was taxpayers' money. If these points had been made in 1967, some or all of that loss could have been avoided.
Schedule 4(1), which deals with the amount of grant, gives the Minister a great deal of discretion in deciding what percentage of any appropriate grant laid down in paragraph 2 he can give to any particular grouping of individuals, an individual or a co-operative. It seems that this is giving the Minister a great deal of discretion. I would have thought that in agriculture we need, as far as possible, to make certain that money is disbursed according to rules laid down by this sort of Statutory Instrument. In view of what has been happening, particularly with groups over the past few years, we should not look kindly on the renewal of discretionary powers. The Minister ought to think again or at least give us some


explanation why these powers should continue.
Another thing that worries me is in Schedule 4(1), which says that the Minister may calculate, in his discretion, the percentage grant by reference to expenditure reasonably incurred. That is beyond dispute. But he may also calculate it by reference to an estimate of expenditure so incurred. It seems that this is a concession to the sort of groups about which I have been talking, which may not keep sufficient records to satisfy normal accounting procedures. Because they have put in a scheme which was approved, got the money and spent it or are on the way to spending it, the Minister is having to say that it is the best that can be done and an estimate has been taken of what would be spent and the grant based on that.
I want to stress the point that estimates of expenditure in any area can be way out. It is seen in all sorts of things, and in industry generally. How much more so is this true of livestock, when we are dealing with living animals which cannot be assessed in the same way as the raw materials for something like the RB211? If anyone knows anything about agriculture, he will realise that it is impossible to tie the hands of people who want to get grants in quite the same way as it is possible in industry. It should be possible for any worth-while co-operative which wants a Government grant to apply after it has spent the money or when it has a water-tight scheme, which does not provide a reasonable estimate to the Minister but makes certain that the money has been spent and spent wisely.
The last five words of the paragraph:
… or in any other way
give the Minister a wide-ranging discretion to pay out these grants on any basis whatsoever. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the wording
… or in any other way
should be necessary. Why should any form of agricultural co-operative, set up for whatever purpose, not have to fulfil the normal obligations of any organisasational group of people applying for money from any body; namely, the need to put in a workable scheme, to cost it as thoroughly as possible and to go

ahead on that basis, coming back if things go wrong? There should be no reason for these words.
My basic point is in Schedule 4(2)(e), which refers to grants relating to the setting up of a co-operative association. "Co-operative association" means more than "agricultural co-operative". I wish it merely meant that. What it means is what the Labour Government meant in 1967 in Section 61 of the 1967 Act, namely, any group of producers which gets together for the purpose of forming some form of co-operative or engaging in a co-operative activity merely for the purposes of getting money from the Government.
In view of what the Minister has said about groups being formed specifically because money is available, and in view of what I have said, from which the Minister did not dissent, about a number of groups disappearing after the 3-year grant period was over because they were not viable, the wording "co-operative association" needs to be looked at closely. Experience has shown it to be too widely drawn. I hope there will be machinery to ensure that money is not thrown away on ad hoc groupings formed for the purpose of getting money.
I should like to see a report by the Council on the workings of groups which have received grants after the grants have been withdrawn. Once aid stops the groups no longer figure in the annual report of the Council. It is the groups which disappear from the limelight after having received taxpayers' money which worry me.
It may be thought that I have been prejudiced in singling out certain groups, but the whole tone of Parliament on agriculture is that farmers and producers must stand on their own feet and organise their own marketing. I received a reply to a Question yesterday which bears this out. In answer to Question No. 43, the Minister referred to the policy of the Government under which the producer would increasingly get his return from the market instead of from deficiency payments or public funds, and he said that this would provide a positive incentive for farmers individually and collectively to improve marketing.
I hope that the Government will push more money into agriculture to improve


marketing, but there is no point in wasting the taxpayers' money ostensibly for the purpose of improving agricultural marketing when the groups to which the money is paid do not survive as viable units after the payments cease and when they are tempted by Government money to engage in marketing activities which are beyond their capacity. This particularly applies to livestock and pig marketing. Groups have taken livestock marketing through to the consumers, they have bought slaughterhouses, transport fleets and processing units and have had links with retail shops. At the end of the day they have gone bust because they lacked the professional expertise necessary for large-scale marketing operations.
I do not want to argue for a national approach to marketing either in the light of possible entry to the Common Market, when it will be essential for all agricultural products, or in the light of import levies, which we on this side regret. Import levies will not necessarily help to keep up market prices. I do not want to anticipate any agricultural debate we might have, although since June, 1970, we have not had a debate on agriculture, which is appalling since agriculture is our largest industry. I hope that there will soon be a debate on the implications of the Government's agricultural policy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his attention to the Scheme.

Mr. Deakins: I am sorry I was straying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but one is tempted in this debate—because it is our first opportunity to debate agriculture at any length in this Parliament—to wander a little from the wording of the Statutory Instrument.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not wander. That is what I am trying to discourage him from doing.

Mr. Deakins: I assure you that I will bring myself quickly into order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by returning to the question of marketing. The Government want to make grants to improve marketing. The grants will be wasted unless they are paid to bodies which will be viable entities when the grants are eventu-

ally withdrawn and unless the Government bear in mind the general marketing circumstances of the sections of the industry to which the grants are paid.
It may be, for example, that in livestock marketing—the Meat and Livestock Commission does not have marketing powers—the Government would be better advised, rather than putting money into groups, to encourage the Commission or some other statutory body, perhaps a producer marketing board, to undertake the marketing of livestock. I do not press the point and I shall not argue it tonight, but the Government should consider the suggestion if they are sincere in their desire to aid the farming community to improve the marketing of agricultural products.
I am sure that everyone will agree that the marketing of agricultural produce has lagged behind improvements in production. It has tended to be neglected by our farmers, very sadly. and this Statutory Instrument is trying to provide them with money. At the same time, we have a duty to our constituents, although we approve the objective of improving marketing, to ensure that any public money paid out will not be wasted. The Government and the Central Council should think seriously about future marketing projects.
Paragraph 6(2,a) of the Scheme has the direct implication that groups are to be involved in the purpose for which the Scheme is designed. It refers to applications for grants and to co-operative associations and their definition, stating that such associations must
possess and exercise, powers designed to secure such loyalty and support from the members of the association as the Council consider to be necessary".
This is a most important point because one of the reasons why marketing has not progressed in this country as much as in other countries, such as Denmark and New Zealand, is that British farmers have rightly valued their independence in marketing much more highly than the exercise of co-operative projects, particularly against the many outside interests which are seeking to move into agriculture.
Paragraph 6(2,a) suggests that the Government—and, I hope, the Central Council—are aware that a group must have power to secure loyalty and support


from its members. It has not been a condition so far of giving agricultural support to groups and co-operative associations that they should have enforceable legal power over their members. If a capital grant is given, there must be some means of ensuring that it is not dispersed, but there is no point, for example in setting up a suite of offices in a country be sure that the members will be loyal to the marketing officer and the project.
Groups of producers may come together with a viable project, asking for X thousand pounds for the next three years, and the Central Council and the Minister must take such projects largely on trust. What happens if, after payment of the grant, some members decide not to market their produce through the group? It undermines the group's viability.
Paragraph 6(c) and (f) refer to what the Central Council shall take into consideration. One such matter, the scale and general merits of the proposal, is acceptable. Then there is the practicability and suitability for the particular applicant. When there is an offer, people tend to bite off more than they can chew, provided that they do not have to pay in any fixed capital. If the project fails, they think, they will not lose very much. But this is of interest to the House, because Government and taxpayers' money is involved. If sub-paragraph (c) represents a change of heart by the Government, and they are going to be more cautious in paying out money, I welcome it, but I hope that it ensures that the Central Council remembers what has been said in this debate. I am not sure that it knows of the feeling that grants have been paid out high, wide and handsome, with the result that neither agriculture nor the nation is better off.
Under sub-paragraph (f) the Council must take into account such matters as may be appropriate. This should include the sort of things which I have mentioned and a survey of the long-term viability of the project, and should bear some relationship to the situation in that segment of the industry, to ensure that groups do not bite off more than they can chew.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: Again, this is a very wide and all-embracing Schedule suggesting something but not spelling out in detail what the Government require, as my hon. Friend has so well illustrated in respect of the powers designed to secure loyalty and support. It is because of the looseness of the drafting and the matters which are not spelled out that it will be very difficult for many of us on this side of the House to support the Scheme.

Mr. Deakins: I agree. But the point which my hon. Friend was making and which I had not yet mentioned comes in Schedules 9 and 10. With permission, I will draw attention to Schedule 9(2) and Schedule 10(c). Paragraph 2 requires the Council to make a report to the appropriate Minister on the state of progress on projects, and paragraph (c)(i) also requires the applicant for a grant to submit to the Council a report on the progress made in carrying out the approved proposal.
Nothing that I have said is a condemnation of the existing machinery for vetting proposals while they continue. My point is that once the grant has been withdrawn, there seems to be no further obligation on the applicant to report on future progress, no further obligation on the Council to report back to the Minister, and no further obligation on the Minister to report to this House. In paragraph (e) there is a mandatory requirement to keep books, records or other documents until after the expiration of two years from 31st March next following the date on which payment of grant was completed. That suggests that there could be very simple machinery designed to ensure that, after grants have been withdrawn at the end of the statutory three-year period, individuals and groupings of producers are still vetted.
I am afraid that I have spoken for longer than I intended, and I must apologise to those of my hon. Friends who were hoping to speak in this debate. However, this is a matter which is near and dear to my heart and one on which, in recent years outside this House, I have often wanted to express an opinion. The definition of "co-operative association" in the 1967 Act was a disgrace, and I am prepared to say that to the face of the author of the Measure. I hope


that the Government will take what I have said about the weakness of this Statutory Instrument, and draw the attention of the Central Council to the points which have been made in the debate.

2.48 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): This has been a full and interesting debate. I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite have complained about the lateness of the hour at which this Scheme has come before the House. Over the past six years, there have been many occasions when I have had to debate agricultural Orders late into the night, but I regarded it as part of my duty as an hon. Member representing an agricultural constituency, and I did not find it onerous to represent my constituents' interests. The depth of the discussion does not exactly indicate that the lateness of the hour has hindered hon. Members in putting forward their points. For those reasons, therefore, I must reject their synthetic indignation.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his strictures on the urgency or the need for us to attend apply to the Secretary of State for Wales as well?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not see the point of that intervention. I am here to answer the debate. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was here to open it.
I shall endeavour to answer as many of the points which have been put as is possible in the short time left to me.
I should like, first, to deal with the statistical aspect which was raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) about the saving to be made by withdrawing grants for working capital. This was, I thought, answered in part by the hon. Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), whose figures were correct. In 1970–71 the estimated amount being spent on working capital grants is £450,000 out of a total expenditure under the Scheme of £850,000.
I was asked certain questions about the number of applications and the amount of grants which have been approved in different parts of the United Kingdom. I

apologise for wearying the House with statistics, but I have been asked for them.
In England there have been 676 applications with grants approved of £2,126,000. In Wales there were 68 applications with grants approved of £130,000. In Scotland there were 96 applications with grants approved of £275,000. For Northern Ireland the figures are 190 applications and grants approved of £262,000. I am sure that my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland will be very interested to know those figures. There has been a total of 1,030 applications with grants approved of £2,793,000.
Concerning the point raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), the detailed figure relating to working capital for Wales is not available.
Before coming to what I regard as the central issues, it might be helpful to deal with two points raised by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), who takes a great interest in matters of co-operation.
The first point related to what the hon. Gentleman called a schizophrenia on the part of the Government, on the one hand, approving, through the Farm Capital Grant Scheme, of which co-operative organisations can make use to clear scrubland of rabbits, and, on the other hand, withdrawing support for rabbit clearance societies. There is a difference. The Capital Grant Scheme deals with capital grants of one kind and another. There is no schizophrenia in at the same time withdrawing assistance towards current expenditure for a particular aspect of this work in dealing with these pests. I agree that it is a fair debating point to make in this Chamber, but it does not demonstrate any inconsistency.
The second point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and also by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, related to roads. I appreciate the problem in rural areas concerning unclassified roads and access. not only to milk tankers, but to other vehicles. I represent a rural constituency—North Angus and Mearns—and I was horn and brought up in a country area, so I know about these difficulties. I agree with one hon. Gentleman who, in an intervention, said that the problem went much further than milk tankers, and so on.


All I can say is that, so far as unclassified roads are concerned, this is a matter which has to be taken up with the local authority. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue it, he should pursue it with the Department of the Environment. But as regards farm roads, the capital grants scheme applies to these, and if there is a co-operative which chooses to put forward an application on a cooperative basis to improve access roads to farms themselves—not unclassified public roads—then such a case will be examined on its merits and will, in principle, be one on which grant can apply. I hope that answers the point which the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the Minister pay attention to the fact that the grant in this case is a grant of 40 per cent., whereas the grant in 1955 was 80 per cent? Is he willing to consider the possibility of raising the grant so far as that expenditure is concerned?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This comes under the parent Order which we debated before Christmas, and I could not give any assurance on those grounds. The point I would make is that there is a higher rate of grant so far as hill areas are concerned, so that with the more difficult type of farm there would be a possibility, depending on the eligibility of the farm, of a higher rate of grant.
I should now like to come to what I believe were the two main points in the debate: namely, first, the withdrawal of assistance for working capital; and, secondly, the question of helping smaller co-operatives. As regards working capital, I would, I am afraid, merely refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said in opening this debate. What we are particularly concerned to do is to see that the money which we are spending under these Schemes is cost effective. It is taxpayers' money, and it is the wish of the farming community that the money is applied in the best possible manner to give the best return. That is why, in principle, we believe it is right to support co-operatives. If we did not believe we were getting a proper return, we would not be putting forward the Scheme this evening.
We believe that the money that has been invested in these working capital

grants has not been as effective as we should have liked. There has been evidence—and this has been said to me by individual producers who have formed co-operatives—that farmers have been encouraged to co-operate merely for the sake of the grant. This is not what we want them to do. We want them to co-operate for the sake of the benefits which they believe co-operation will bring, and the purpose of a Scheme such as this is to oil the wheels and give promotional help. As my hon. Friend said in opening, that has been accepted by the Central Council. While I accept that there has been a certain amount of criticism in certain quarters in the agricultural community, there are many individual farmers who have had experience of co-operation who believe that we are right in wanting the money to be effective, in restricting help in this way, and in concentrating much more on the promotional aspect.
The second main point with which I should like to deal before I am beaten by the clock concerns the smaller co-operatives. The hon. Member for Cardigan and the hon. Member for Carmarthen both raised this question. I must confess that I felt the hon. Member for Cardigan —with whom I always enjoy debating, and who always contributes very constructively to these debates—was using rather extravagent language when he said that we were set to destroy rural communities and so on. I felt he was slightly misquoting what I said before Christmas, in saying that we were trying to further the cause of the big farmer and so on. That is not at all what I said. I said that what we wanted to do was to help the small farmer to increase the size of his business and to make him more viable, which is quite different. It is important to get that on the record tonight.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen said that if, having examined the position of small producers, there were administrative difficulties standing in the way, we should do something about those difficulties. I could not agree more. If it were merely a question of administrative difficulties we would, of course, be prepared to consider the administrative arrangements to see if they could be improved. But I assure him that we have made this alteration for reasons other than administrative difficulties.
The answer to the questions that were asked about grants to small producers'


associations is that in the period of the Scheme, there have been only two applications. Special machinery has, of course, been available to deal with these, but, in view of the obviously very limited problem, we did not feel that it would be sensible to carry on with this administrative machinery.

The important point to bear in mind is that small producers are not excluded from the Scheme. We are giving them

Division No. 222.]
AYES
[3.1 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gummer, Selwyn
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pink, R. Bonner


Atkins, Humphrey
Havers, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hornby, Richard
Redmond, Robert


Boscawen, Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bray, Ronald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Brewis, John
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chapman, Sydney
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sharples, Richard


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kinsey, J. R.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kitson, Timothy
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Soref, Harold


Cockeram, Eric
Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spence, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longden, Gilbert
Sproat, Iain


Dixon, Piers
MacArthur, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mather, Carol
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Eden, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sutcliffe, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mitchell,Lt.Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Fidler, Michael
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Fortescue, Tim
Money, Ernle
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fowler, Norman
Monks, Mrs. Connie
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
More, Jasper
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhew, Victor
Normanton, Tom



Gower, Raymond
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gray, Hamish
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Green, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


English, Michael
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Mr. James Wellbeloved and


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Mr. Eric Deakins.

Resolved,
That the Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.

CALF SUBSIDIES

3.10 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move,

the same administrative machinery as other co-operatives have had and there is no question of denying to small producers who wish to co-operate exactly the same benefits as are available to bigger producers.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes, 101. Noes,5.
That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

The object of the Scheme is to provide for the continuation of calf subsidies after the present Scheme expires at the end of March this year. As the terms of this Scheme are in the main identical with those of the existing one, I do not think that the House will wish me to give more than a fairly brief and succinct description of it.

Part I provides for the payment of subsidy on live calves born during the three-year period up to and including 29th October, 1973: Part II for payment on carcases certified for fatstock guarantee during the three-year period 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1974. These two ways of paying subsidy are generally known as "Stage A" and "Stage B". Three years is the longest time allowed for a scheme under the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Act, 1952, but schemes can, of course, be amended within the three years. Stage A continues the provision contained in earlier schemes for paying subsidy on live steers and heifers of suitable beef potential, except heifers of the four main dairy breeds.

The House will be interested to know that under Stage A 2½ million calves receive subsidy each year.

Stage B continues what is in the existing Scheme with regard to payment on carcases of any home bred cattle which have not received the subsidy as calves, and which are not imported but which are of a standard eligible for fatstock guarantee. This stage enables subsidy to be paid on heifers of the dairy breeds which cannot be eligible while they are still alive, because of the likelihood that they will be subsequently used for milk rather than beef production.

Under Stage B 162,000 calves, a very distinct minority, receive subsidy each year. Stage B also gives a further chance of qualifying for subsidy to those calves which fail to meet the required standard at Stage A.

Hon. Members will wish to know of two changes from the present Scheme. The first of these is that, following the Transfer of Functions (Wales) Order, 1969, provision has been made for the Secretary of State for Wales to share with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the making of the Scheme and its administration in Wales. The other change is limited to Northern Ireland. The Government at Stormont have for some time followed what is in my view a wholly praiseworthy policy of encouraging the dehorning of cattle; and it is an offence in Northern Ireland to sell or export horned cattle, or to expose for sale or present for slaughter cattle which bear signs of recent dehorning. The

reason for the ban on recent dehorning is that, with inspection taking place at not less than six months, it is clearly wise that dehorning should be done well before that time. Therefore, the Government of Northern Ireland strongly discourage dehorning closely before the six-month date.

These provisions already preclude the payment of calf subsidy on horned animals at Stage B and, in order to give further support to the dehorning policy, the Scheme provides that calves in Northern Ireland with horns or unhealed wounds apparently resulting from their removal should not receive subsidy at Stage A. They would still have an opportunity to qualify for subsidy at Stage B provided that their horns had been removed by that time. This provision has been accepted by the Ulster Farmers' Union and other livestock interests in Northern Ireland.

The total amount spent in the 1969–70 financial year was £271 million, divided between the different countries as follows—England and Wales £18½ million; Scotland £5½ million, and Northern Ireland £3½ million. Over the years the Scheme has run well, and has clearly fulfilled its purpose of encouraging the retention of calves for beef. The numbers of these have been increasing for some time, and it is the Government's intention that this increase should be maintained.

I think that this is a thoroughly good Scheme, and I commend it to the House.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Michael Barnes: We are grateful to the Minister for that explanation of the Scheme.
It is very late, but there are just a few questions I should like to put to the hon. Gentleman. The Scheme introduces differential arrangements for the payment of subsidy for unhorned animals in Northern Ireland. Does this presage a change of policy towards dehorning in Great Britain? What numbers of calves will be affected by the decision to exclude from subsidy horned cattle in Northern Ireland? Will this affect supplies of animals for fattening in Great Britain?
Naturally, we are also concerned to know how the subsidies may be affected by Government policy, and what will happen to them in the event of Britain's


successfully negotiating entry into the E.E.C. What will the future of the Scheme be if Great Britain—[Interruption.]—if, if—

Mr. Stanley Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for that.

Mr. Barnes: —if we join the E.E.C., or if the Government's plans for levies on agricultural imports are put into effect. Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will continue to make resources available to calf rearers, bearing in mind that they do not necessarily receive full benefit from increases in the end price?
Apart from those few questions, we welcome the Scheme.

3.17 a.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I shall be exceedingly brief. The Minister did not make any reference to how the Scheme will operate in any succeeding year in view of the Government's intention to introduce a meat tax. Unless he can satisfy us on that point, I shall advise my hon. Friends to divide on the Motion.

3.18 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The Government have no intention of introducing a meat tax in the terms used by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). I hope that that disposes once and for all of that spectre which the hon. Gentleman, I know with the best will in the world, tries to raise on so many occasions at Question Time and at other times.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) raised some very valid points. De- horning has the support of the Ulster Farmers' Union, which agrees that it is a sensible measure. The hon. Gentleman asked why we do not apply it to the United Kingdom as a whole, but the circumstances are somewhat different. So many Northern Ireland

Division No. 223.]
AYES
[3.22 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Broklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cockeram, Eric


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cormack, Patrick


Atkins, Humphrey
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Dixon, Piers


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chapman, Sydney
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Boscawen, Robert
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Eden, Sir John


Bray, Ronald
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eyre, Reginald


Brewis, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

cattle are transported to Great Britain, and with the sea crossing and so on there is a far greater risk of damage and consequent loss to producers.

In Great Britain other measures can be equally effective. For example, the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Cattle recognises that horned cattle should not be loose-housed where there is danger of injury or bullying, and that full consideration should be given to the dehorning of calves, called disbudding, at an early stage. In Great Britain our legislation covering slaughterhouses, and the transporting and marketing of livestock, already makes special provision for horned animals.

Cattle cannot travel to these shores from Northern Ireland if they are horned. They are not permitted to be carried. Therefore, I do not expect any difference to arise.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick asked what would happen to the Scheme in the event of the United Kingdom joining the Common Market. As I have said many times at Question Time, we must await the outcome of the negotiations in Brussels. I cannot go any further and commit myself on the negotiations. We place considerable importance on a Scheme such as this; we would not have proposed it if we did not. It will help to put money into the hands of those who breed calves, who often sell their stock in a store state or as calves and do not have the benefit of a return direct from the market.

A Scheme like this has a place in our agricultural system. I assure the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick that we regard the Scheme as important and we shall be taking it into account in our negotiations. I commend the Scheme to the House. I hope that hon. Members opposite will have appreciated my winding up speech on this occasion and that they will not divide the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 0.

Fidler, Michael
Longden, Gilbert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
MacArthur, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fortescue, Tim
Mather, Carol
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fowler, Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sharples, Richard


Gibson-Watt, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gower, Raymond
Moate, Roger
Soref, Harold


Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James
Speed, Keith


Green, Alan
Money, Ernle
Spence, John


Gummer, Selwyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sproat, Iain


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Havers, Michael
More, Jasper
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hornby, Richard
Normanton, Tom
Sutcliffe, John


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Osborn, John
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hunt, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tebbit, Norman


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pink, R. Bonner
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pounder, Rafton
Weatherill, Bernard


Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Redmond, Robert
Worsley, Marcus


Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Younger, Hn. George


Kitson, Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover)



Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Walter Clegg and




Mr. Victor Goodhew.




NOES



TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. James Wellbeloved and




Mr. Eric Deakins.

Resolved,
That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1971. a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

AGRICULTURAL SCHEMES (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Resolved,
That the Payments in Aid of Agricultural Schemes (Extension) Order 1971, dated 15th January, 1971. a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th January be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

ELECTRICITY (BORROWING POWERS)

3.31 a.m.

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): I beg to move,
That the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.
The draft Order now before the House would raise the limit on the borrowing powers of the Electricity Council and electricity boards in England and Wales from its present level of £4,100 million to £4,400 million, the maximum provided for in Section 15 (5) of the Electricity Act, 1957, as amended by the Electricity and Gas Act, 1963. When the 1963 Act was before the House an Explanatory Memorandum was published which explained that the need to establish a new limit of £4,400 million was based on estimates of the industry's net borrowing

requirements over a period of seven years up to about 31st March, 1970.
The present limit was laid down by the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1966, a draft of which was approved by this House on 2nd November, 1966. In moving the Motion to approve that draft Order, the then Minister of Power, the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), envisaged a new Order to raise the limit further would be needed in 1969, although he recognised that the estimates of the industry's borrowing were subject to considerable uncertainty. In fact the industry's requirements have been less than was expected and outstanding borrowings are only now reaching the limit laid down in 1966.
The reasons for the lower rate of borrowing in recent years than was foreseen in 1963 or even 1966 are the scaling down of the industry's investment programme and the fact that a rather higher proportion of capital requirements than had been expected has been financed from internal resources. In consequence, the capital requirements of the industry which had been expected to total £4,600 million over the seven years up to March, 1970 in fact reached only £3,800 million. For several years past tentative plans for future investment have been cut back year by year as it became apparent that earlier assumptions about the growth of the economy and the rate of demand for


electricity had been over optimistic. Over the period 1964 to 1970, for example, the average annual increase in the simultaneous maximum demand on the grid has been around 4 per cent.—only half the rate in the ten years before that, which was expected to continue.
In the same period the annual rate of growth of the domestic product has been only about 2 per cent., again only half the rate of growth anticipated in the National Plan. The Electricity Council's forecast in 1965 was that the demand in 1970–71, this winter, would reach 54,000 megawatts. Five years later than that original forecast was made, the Electricity Council was still expecting demand to be at that level in the winter of 1975–76.
In view of the poor rate of growth in demand in the past year it seems likely that this year's forecast will again be reduced. There has recently been an announcement that, in anticipation of such a reduction, the C.E.G.B. has decided to defer the start of its new power station at Sizewell B. This deferment, like others over the past five years, will result in a continuing low rate of capital expenditure.
Borrowing has been tending to run at a lower rate in recent years, having fallen from its highest level of £379 million in 1966–67 to a low point in 1969–70 of £101 million. Preliminary indications are that borrowing will be higher this year.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Is there any special reason for this application at this moment, other than the reasons that the Minister has given? Is the Electricity Council short of capital for any reason at the moment?

Sir J. Eden: It is not a case so much of shortage as the fact that the borrowing is approaching the statutory limit. Some of the reasons I have already given, others I shall try to give. The main reason why some of the borrowing is likely to be higher this year is that there has been a sharp rise in the industry's costs. Fuel costs are up. About a third of the industry's total costs have risen sharply. There have been three increases in the price of coal to the C.E.G.B. in the past 18 months. Oil prices have also been rising substantially. In addition, supply and distribution problems have meant that the authority has had to operate plants out of merit order to conserve

coal stocks. Labour costs are a smaller element than fuel in total costs. Earnings have increased, but improved productivity has meant that unit labour costs have tended to fall in recent years. More recently there has been a levelling-off as a result of the much bigger pay settlements than in earlier years.
Even though costs have been increasing electricity prices have been held fairly stable. Indeed, one or two boards were able to make minor reductions early last year, but with cost increases out-running revenue increases, borrowing was inevitably greater than would otherwise have been the case. In addition there was disappointing progress in commissioning new plant and poor initial performance of new plant when commissioned. Consequently the improvements in efficiency and the economies which had been expected were delayed. This in turn has kept fuel consumption up and aggravated the coal shortage. Clearly it is essential to improve power station performance and every effort is being made by the C.E.G.B. and the manufacturers of generating equipment to this end.
As the House knows, there were investigations by the Wilson Committee, which reported in 1969, by the N.E.D.C. Working Party on Large Industrial Construction Sites in 1970 and the report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, 1970. These showed that there are no easy remedies. Indeed, the postal strike, with the resultant reduction in cash receipts, has not exactly helped.

Mr. Orme: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what is the Board losing in revenue through not being able to collect bills and so forth?

Sir J. Eden: It is hard to quantify it exactly. The total impact is likely to be something in the order of £70 million in cash flow. This was initially compressed in the early stages of the postal strike. Now I think I am right in saying that all area boards have virtually overcome that problem. They have now got their organisations well established and are getting in 80 per cent. or more of normal revenue. I do not have all the figures before me, but the picture is by no means all black and I would not be right to leave that impression with the House.


There has been a substantial reduction, for example, in manpower, from 229,000 at 31st March, 1967, to 197,000 at 31st March, 1970, a reduction of 30,000 in three years in an industry which increased its output by over 15 per cent. in that period. This is not just the result of capital expenditure. It has resulted from improved working methods. Also, a lot of new plant has been brought into operation and is producing worth-while economies.
The C.E.G.B. achieved a record commissioning performance in 1970, bringing 4,509 mW into service and making inroads into the arrears which had been building up for a long time. A further encouraging sign is that a substantial amount of plant, although not fully commissioned, has been capable of making a significant contribution to peak demand during the winter.
The industry's outstanding borrowings are now almost at the permitted limit, and further provision is essential for its continued development in the next year or two. The industry estimates that outstanding borrowings may reach £4,300 million by March 1973 and, because of seasonal and day to day fluctuations in the cash flow, borrowings may rise above that level before the end of the financial year 1972–73. I may, therefore, have to return to the House to seek amending legislation during that year, but for the present it is clearly desirable to raise the borrowing limit to the maximum permitted by the existing legislation, that is £4,400 million, and I ask the House to approve the Order.

3.41 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I want first to protest at the way in which the Order has been brought before the House. I have no objection to sitting into the small hours, which I regard as a normal part of the life of a Member of Parliament, but the Minister may remember the history of these borrowing powers for electricity. The purpose of having to come to the House at frequent intervals to raise money on what is bound to be a large scale because of the nature of this capital intensive industry was to give the Government much greater parliamentary accountability. To bring this Order before the House in a series of

about nine Orders upsets entirely the intention of the procedure. As one who has taken part in every debate on electricity borrowing powers Orders during the time I have been in the House, I hope the Minister will note my protest.
The Minister is right in saying that the 1966 Order raised the borrowing limit to £4,100 million. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) at that time promised that a new Order would be brought in later to bring the advance up to the present figure. I take it that it is for this reason, apart from the present cash flow position, which is not quite so rosy as the hon. Gentleman supposes, that it is necessary to have the Order.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, who was about the fifth Minister back responsible for electricity, expected that the limit would run out in March, 1969—I remember his making that remark at the time. It has lasted longer because, unfortunately, the rate of expansion of the industry has slowed down, although it will always go ahead at some rate because one cannot imagine an industrial society where electricity does not advance from year to year. This slowing down of electricity expansion is serious for the country, because the use of electricity in modern societies reflects the measure of industrial activity. It is almost a straightline progression. Slowing down means that we are falling rather faster than we should be back into a state of semi-slump in the country.
I believe that the industry—and the House knows my considerable interest—is being treated shabilly by the Government. I am not sure that the last Government treated it as well as it should have been. It is being subjected to an over-strict discipline in the matter of capital investment. It is not free as it was at one time to act as traditionally public utilities acted. Utilities are not, after all, free to pick and choose their markets. The electricity supply industry must not only supply electricity but do so, under a legal obligation, 24 hours a day to any consumer who requires the service. Therefore, the modern fashion of imposing upon public utilities an arbitrary rate of return on capital is not always as sound as some might think.
The industry has been imposed upon in relation to its rate of return. The


Electricity Council has protested vigorously. The situation is reflected in the figure of external borrowing as against the internal raising of capital. In 1968–69, external borrowing was 30 per cent. and the proportion raised by the industry from its own resources—as I interpret it—was no less than 70 per cent. As I read the Annual Report of the Electricity Council, the industry in 1969–70 seems to have raised no less than 77 per cent. from its own resources. This means that the consumer is being asked to an enormous extent to supply the capital for development of electricity and therefore to pay far more for electricity than he would normally be expected to do. The enormous surpluses the industry is expected to build up and the reserves it must put aside in order to meet the arbitrary rate of return on capital amount to nothing less than a tax on the consumer and have the unfortunate effect of limiting the industry's development.
The policy of imposing such a tight discipline on electricity supply is aggravating a semi-recession into which it is tending to move. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not suggest—he was cautious about it—that wages and salaries are to blame. Wilberforce did not. It is remarkable how coy the Government have been about Wilberforce generally. They appointed the Court of Inquiry and it was looked forward to extensively, but they must have been disappointed by the outcome. although not as much as by Scamp. Wilberforce commented on costs due to wages and salaries as against the cost commitment to high capital charges. On page 28 of this report of the "three wise men", we read:
We would not wish to generalise about the relation between profitability and the ability to pay higher wages and salaries in the public sector of industry. Circumstances vary widely, but in view of the extent to which the electricity industry has a virtual monopoly of supply, and the relatively small proportion of total costs represented by labour costs, we do not think it necessary to go into the question of the relation between these factors and the ability of the industry to pay.
So there is no echo in Wilberforce of the Government's theme song that inflation is brought about just by higher wages and salaries.
There is another interesting reference on page 34:
It is true that in the electricity supply industry pay of the industrial staff, or indeed total labour costs, do not represent a pre-

ponderant part of the total costs. In the last financial year … pay of the industrial staff represented about 10 per cent. of total costs, and all labour costs represented about 20 per cent. of total costs.
The tribunal ends with this sentence:
These figures are not negligible but neither are they, in themselves, alarming.
Therefore, although the argument is being used, as it freely is by Government spokesmen, that the cause of runaway inflation is too high wages and salaries, in a capital-intensive industry like electricity supply, Wilberforce was wise enough to conclude that the argument did not make a great deal of sense.
This industry, therefore, has to carry considerable burdens, which are not seriously heightened by excessive wage and salary costs. There is not only the arbitrary rate of return imposed by Government policy; it has been forced by successive Governments to use more coal than it would with and at prices which would not be economical if the industry were working on a straight commercial basis. 1 do not say that there are not good social reasons for this, but the House should remember the services which the electricity supply industry has thereby rendered to social harmony.
The investment grant system is to end, but at the moment it is still working and the House should not also overlook the fact that, two decades after nationalisation, 20–21 per cent. of our industrial power is generated privately. This is a form of competition to which the nationalised industry is now subject because the private industrialist who puts in plant to generate his own power has been getting the advantage of the investment grants which the nationalised industry does not get. Here again, the industry has protested strongly to Governments about this, and I should be glad to know whether the Minister has now any policy for dealing with what is a substantial grievance of the industry.
When we consider how much extra capital the industry should have, I make again the point that the prosperity of electricity is the prosperity of the country, because, in the matter of energy supply, electricity is the great joiner. We hear a lot about the new varying primary sources of energy and how, in the course of 25 years, the country has moved from its dependence on one primary source,


coal, to spreading sources of energy supply between coal, oil, uranium and now natural gas. However, these primary sources of energy cannot be applied to the life of industry without electricity as the intermediary. If the electricity industry is handicapped and held back too much, the industrial life of the nation will suffer for the new energy sources will remain less flexible.
I notice from my evening paper that money is said to be pouring into the City of London. Presumably it is being attracted by the very high interest rates which are available. While unemployment increases, bankruptcies multiply and industrial share values tumble, money pours into the City of London. I can only say, as a citizen who is also an engineer, that this kind of statement gives me no comfort. It has the smell of the 1930s about it. I do not want to be too extravagant in my words, but that is my feeling.
I am sure that the City of London renders useful financial services. But it creates nothing very much in terms of real wealth. Real wealth is created by the improved productive efficiency of industry, and that is the only long-term solution for inflation and the only long-term way in which we can hope to obtain higher real incomes. Those objectives are not attained by policies which attempt to limit the natural reaction of individuals to match their incomes to their expenditure. It is not done either by having high interest rates and then being pleased that money is coming into the City of London. Inflation will only be dealt with by an advancing productivity rate.
Perhaps I might give a small piece of advice to the Government, not that they are likely to take it. It is that 2 per cent. off interest rates and 4 per cent. on productivity would do infinitely more to end inflation than any other means of which I can think. If we are to attain this, it means more industrial investment generally and, as the underlying base to that extra industrial investment, the country badly needs more electricity investment.
I noted with some small shred of pleasure that last year the electricity boards succeeded in selling 4·3 per cent. more energy to industry compared with

an increase in industrial output of 2·6 per cent. Hence, British industry at long last is using more electricity at the point of production—and it certainly needs to do so.
We talk of the need for increased investment all round. I am trying to make the point then that the fact that the electricity industry is borrowing less is not something which should give us great joy. If the country was really booming the electricity supply industry would be borrowing infinitely more.
But increased investment in electricity generating plant as the basis for industrial expansion implies that it is available for use after it is commissioned.
The Minister referred to the technical engineering difficulties which the electricity supply industry—especially the C.E.G.B.—has been having with some of the new alternators which it has installed—the 500 megawatt sets in particular. Britain is not the only country which is having problems of this kind. The United States has had somewhat similar problems.
The situation seemed to be so serious in our industry that, over a year ago now. the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which I had the privilege to chair at that time, decided to look into it. The inquiry was done quite independently of the Government. I do not think that the then Government, for the best of motives, were keen that the Select Committee should investigate, but it did. The Committee's I hope constructive report rendered considerable service to knowledge. The Committee made some useful practical suggestions which the industry perhaps took to heart.
Touching the question of how much generating capacity is available, it seems that this winter we are on the edge of a great mystery which I am doing my best to clear up. During the work-to-rule in December last there was load shedding on a scale which has not been experienced before. I was brought up in the tradition of electricity supply that to maintain the continuity of the supply was a primary responsibility; to let the supply go due to some mishance for even 10 minutes was almost a crime. This was the tradition which I and many others in the industry grew up to observe. Therefore, to have the situation which


we had last December was for me a sad experience.
At that time the Ministers vied with each other in blaming the workers in the industry for doing what Wilberforce said afterwards was within their rights. However, the workers were blamed entirely, particularly by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, for the inconvenience and hardship undoubtedly suffered by the public. After the blackouts commenced, the first statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the situation was on 8th December. I have the reference in HANSARD, but I think that I can quote from memory what the right hon. Gentleman said: that the actions of the industrial staff in electricity supply had resulted in a reduction in the electrical capacity which was not available by from 20 to 25 per cent. Therefore, anyone reading that statement, or reading the figures subsequently, would suppose that the industry was lacking only 5 per cent. of plant in December; in other words, that 95 per cent. of plant could have been run.
That staggered me, knowing something of the internal affairs of the industry, and having conducted the investigation into the plant troubles about a year before. I could hardly believe that the situation was so good, so I took the step of putting down a Parliamentary Question, and the Written Answer which I received on the 8th February was that the hon. Gentleman was asking Sir Stanley Brown, Chairman of the C.E.G.B., to write to me. As it happened, Sir Stanley was away and it was Mr. Owen Francis, the Deputy Chairman, who wrote to me. Let us see what he had to say about the electricity capacity that was available, and about how it compared with the loss of output due to under-manning. The second paragraph of his letter, which I am sure has been studied in the Department, stated:
The approximate daily loss in total output capacity during the period 7th to 11th December, 1970, which can be attributed to electrical and mechanical causes was 24 per cent.
And yet, apparently, according to the Answer given to the House by the Minister, it was 5 per cent. Mr. Francis went on:
A further 17 per cent. approximately was lost because of under-manning.
The public should really know the situation, which is that they suffered the in-

convenience they did mainly because—according to Mr. Owen Francis—commissioned plant was not available, and not primarily because of the action of the industrial staff. I hope I am fair enough to admit that 17 per cent. on top of 24 per cent. did not help the situation at all of course. But if the situation had been as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had put it in the House, then the public would not have noticed, at least for some time, the effect of the work to rule. I am therefore bound to put these Questions to the Minister. I hope that in due course we are going to have an explanation. In fact, I have written to his right hon. Friend, asking him to make a correcting statement, but if a correcting statement is not necessary and we have all misunderstood the figures, I should like an explanation.
I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that if 24 per cent. of the commissioned plant was not available in December, that represents nearly a quarter of the total installed capacity. The total installed capaciy or the peak demand, which is roughly the same, is about 40,000 megawatts, and a quarter of that is 10,000 megawatts. If I may put that in terms which can be readily appreciated, 10,000 megawatts is roughly the output of 20 medium size power stations. It is staggering if it is the case because it would represent the whole of the electricity supply of some countries. I hope that at some stage, if not tonight, these mysteries will be explained.
Many subjects are in order in debating this Instrument, but I wish now to curtail my remarks at this hour. As the Minister knows, I have taken a keen interest in the proposed reorganisation of the electricity supply industry. I appeal to the Government to make an announcement soon on their intentions in this connection.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) was the Minister when the Labour Government announced the need for, at that time, a limited amount of reorganisation. The then Conservative Opposition did not challenge that need, though they objected to the Bill which was finally produced on a number of secondary grounds, including the proposal, which I thought was sound, that the C.E.G.B. should have the right to manufacture on its own account. That Bill was introduced in April of last year


by the then Labour Government, and the present Minister and I served on the Committee upstairs. Unfortunately the General Election intervened during the Bill's progress, and the Measure fell.
The main proposal in what was a moderate, perhaps too moderate, Bill was that the industry should be given stronger central direction. It was said by the then Government that the Electricity Council lacked executive authority and that that was a great weakness in an industry which was so large and important. The Bill therefore proposed a new central authority to guide the industry's strategy and to help it meet the increasing severe challenge from its competitors. It also contained an interesting provision relating to the possibility of the industry reorganising its own structure as a matter of normal managerial and technical evolution without coming to Parliament for legislation.
That still-born Bill of 1970 was a mild Measure which proposed nothing really drastic in the way of alteration and reform. The Minister, who at that time led for his party, was then clearly bent on doing something much more radical. Also he pointed out the need for prior discussion and consultation and called for a White Paper to be issued. I cannot remember how long the Government have been in office. It seems longer than it probably is. I should have thought that it would have been possible for the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend by now to have done us the courtesy of producing a White Paper setting out the problems of reorganisation of the industry in the way that they demanded this, when in opposition, from the Labour Government. Why can we not have the White Paper? If we are to have it, when will it be published?
When in Opposition. the hon. Gentleman talked about a break up of the Central Electricity Generating Board and suggested that there should be a North and a South Generating Board. He thought that this apparently would give more competition on the wholesale side. But that is not a good solution. I have solutions, with which I shall not now weary the House, but I have written a little on the subject. The right way is to bring the industry much nearer to the

consumer by making the generating side subordinate to the area boards, by turning the C.E.G.B. into a kind of generating-transmission-service company for the area boards. That would not mean breaking the industry into two parts, which would be a bad course and help not at all.
Many people in the industry have a present feeling of uncertainty. They do not know where their jobs will be and how they will work in the future. They are concerned about security of employment when big changes are threatened on which there is silence. I ask the Minister to remove the suspense hanging over the industry and to let us know what is proposed.
There are widespread hints that the Government, as part and parcel of their abrasive, right wing radicalism, are considering compelling the area boards to make over to private enterprise the attractive appliance selling parts of their activities. I hope that these hints have no firm foundation. Showrooms, and other consumer services generally, were an integral part of the electricity supply business long before nationalisation. Therefore, to speak of utilisation, of showrooms and consumer services, as peripheral activities is absurd, because the utilisation function of electricity supply completes the natural process chain within the control of the undertaking, which starts with generation, moves to transmission, becomes distribution and ends with utilisation.
It is sometimes said that in other industrially advanced countries arrangements are different. But that does not help because the evolution of the industry in the United Kingdom has taken its own special course historically. To change that course now would be wasteful of resources and destructive of staff morale.
I hope that the Minister will stay his hand and forget these foolish ideas of breaking away utilisation, which is a classical activity of the industry, from the other natural processes of electricity supply.
On staff morale, the experiences of December of last year showed beyond any doubt the indispensability of electricity to an industrial community. The public clearly now regard electricity as they regard the air and sunlight, as part of the natural order of things, a part which


should be available, unlike the sunlight, for 24 hours a day.
I do not know whether it has occurred to the public, including those of its members who were abusive of the electricity workers, that electricity supply could not be available 24 hours a day, sometimes in the most remote and difficult areas, were it not for the work of electricity staff of all grades who understand their obligations to the public and who are prepared to turn out in all weathers when there are breakdowns. It is not something for which they need or seek special praise but it happens.
I believe, knowing the traditions of the industry and the great service which of necessity it renders to the public and the way that continuity of supply is normally maintained, that Ministers should ask themselves whether, when good relations suddenly cease between trade unions and management—this did not apply only to the industrial unions; the Boards succeeded in quarrelling with both their industrial and their technical staff at the same time—there is not something wrong with the way in which the industry is being managed.
The Minister should consider strengthening the industry's leadership. Napoleon said that there were not bad soldiers but there were always bad officers. I would not withhold my admiration from the technical leadership of the industry, its engineering skill, and its considerable managerial ability, but something has been been wrong in recent times with the way in which its labour relations have been conducted.
This is a matter to which Ministers should direct their minds, because it cannot be for nothing that staffs—industrial and supervisory—who are normally devoted public servants are in conflict with the management. Is the fault entirely that of the unions and of the employees? I do not believe that it is, and no one in the industry believes it. It may not be the fault of individuals. It may be the fault of the system. The whole thing wants looking at.
I am glad that, even in these small hours, the Order which I support has given me the opportunity of making these points.

4.22 a.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Following the interesting, lengthy and

informative discourse by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), which was backed by his background in the industry, I wish to return to the question of cash flow and the effect that the Post Office strike has had on the electricity industry.
The Minister mentioned a figure of about £70 million and said that things were back to near normal or to 80 per cent. normal in most area boards. This does not accord with my knowledge. The general impression is that large numbers of bills are outstanding and that the public have not got the facilities to pay them. This is hindering the industry at a time when it needs the money, as is shown by the fact that the Order is before the House.
The Government have not discharged their responsibility of seeking to end the Post Office dispute; they have not played their full part, either by setting up a court of inquiry or by taking other action. If increased borrowing is necessary, the consumer will have to Pay for the increased interest charges on money that the Boards could have collected through the payment of bills. The Minister cannot dodge this issue. It is more serious and more central to the problem than he has told the House. We are entitled to a little more information about it.
The Minister said that productivity in the industry had been affected recently by a higher increase in wages and therefore a higher pressure on the Electricity Council. The Wilberforce Inquiry took productivity into account and used it as the basis for the award that it advocated. It singled out the electricity industry and tried to isolate it from others because of its productivity. The Minister has told us of the fall in manpower through normal wastage. The productivity in the electricity supply industry and the reduction in labour employed in it cannot be over-emphasised. A great deal of public feeling was aroused against the electricity workers at the time of the go-slow. I think that the general public was not aware that the productivity in the industry had been raised to such a level that one man was now doing two jobs.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have heard many times the comment about public resentment over the electricity power dispute. What concerns me is that


while many hon. Members talked about receiving quantities of letters on the subject I received only one, and that was a complaint about the astronomical increase in the price of candles.

Mr. Orme: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is fairly widely acknowledged that the resentment was whipped up by television and the general Press. This hysteria has not done labour relations in the industry any good. It may have damaged them.
The workers in the industry are worthy of a fair return for their labour. A few years ago the electricity workers were among the first to come under the new productivity bargains. The late Sir Leslie Cannon negotiated the agreement which led to the reduction in the labour force and a higher rate for the workers that came under the agreement. I do not think that the Electrical Trades Union realised that at the end of 1970 the productivity deal would be used against it, and that its increased productivity would not be rewarded by increased wages. They conceded so much on the question of productivity that they suffered. They found it impossible to increase their productivity but were losing ground to other industrial workers which placed them in a very difficult situation.
I turn to the possible hiving off of sections of the industry, particularly on the distribution side, which is profitable. The Minister has explained the need for increased finance, which will have to come basically from the public. It would be criminal if a profitable side of this industry, with its record of expansion and development, which could help to balance the payments that the authority has to make, were hived off. The possibility of hiving off arose on the Coal Industry Bill. I warn the Minister that the public resentment which would be aroused if it were to happen in the electricity supply industry would outmatch anything we have seen previously.

Mr. Palmer: A point which should not be overlooked by the Government is this. If we take from the industry its opportunity to push load development—that is, promote load—we run the risk of not improving the load factor, and this will reduce the general efficiency of the industry.

Mr. Orme: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's technical expertise in these matters.
We make no complaint that this matter is being discussed at this time in the morning. We accept that if we want to discuss it we must stay up late, as the Minister has stayed up late. But we are concerned about labour relations, productivity, profitability and financial status in the industry.

Sir J. Eden: Further borrowing would be a matter for new legislation probably in 1972–73.

Mr. Orme: I thank the Minister for that explanation.
We will keep a watch on the situation. I do not think that my hon. Friends will want to stop this Order, particularly if the Minister can give satisfactory answers to our questions, particularly about the shortfall in the cash flow arising from the Post Office dispute.

4.33 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: This is a borrowing Order. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) did not make it plain whether he approved of capital investment being financed from revenue or whether he preferred it to be financed by borrowing.

Mr. Palmer: It is a question of the balance at any particular time.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend made it clear that the balance was heavily weighted in favour of financing from revenue. I believe he gave 77 per cent. as last year's figure.
1 should like the Minister to comment on the mix as between the two forms of financing. A great deal is to be said for borrowing where there is considerable capital investment which is going to tail off. But where, as is the case in the electricity industry, there is constantly increasing demand and therefore constant continuing capital investment, there is a much greater case for even more than 77 per cent. to be financed from revenue. By the time the borrowed capital is repaid, the power station is out of date in terms of cost—it will be a high-cost power station because technology will have moved on. It would seem better


to finance from revenue to a larger extent than happens at the moment.
I should like to have the Minister's opinion about the mix, which obviously is increasing, since this must affect the extent to which such Orders as this are required. The Minister mentioned capital investment but did not mention the question of mix in regard to methods of financing.
The Minister made the complacent statement that prices had been fairly stable over the last few years. To take only the recent round of price increases, they will involve the consumer in figures of the order of 20 per cent. in South Wales which occurred in July, 1970, to 12 per cent. in many other boards, and 15 per cent. in the case of the North Eastern Board. The domestic consumer in the East Midlands has just experienced a 12 per cent. increase in his prices. The commercial consumer has just suffered a 21 per cent. increase. If this is regarded as "fairly stable" pricing, then we begin to see how the present Government are so utterly incapable of controlling inflation in the economy as a whole. If these figures are to be regarded as fairly stable pricing, it is no wonder that the Government are unable to control the situation of the country.
I should like the Minister to comment on one small point arising from the explanatory note in the Order on the matter of borrowing. The note states
…the Electricity Council, the Generating Board or any Area Board may raise money for capital purposes …".
Has the Minister figures showing the various matters for which money is raised?
The Central Electricity Generating Board is presumably, financed from a revenue point of view, by the area boards. Presumably, there is an outstanding balance at any given time owed by each area board to the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have some reason to believe that this may be considerable and that it is a situation which could be altered by administrative action. I wonder if the Minister has figures about this. It seems clear that in such a case one is raising money because of an inefficient piece of administration. I am sure that the Minister will take the point and be good enough at a later stage to look into it.
I would not suggest to my hon. Friends that we should vote against this Order which obviously is desirable in principle and should be approved.

4.42 a.m.

Sir Eden: With the leave of the House, I should like to try to answer some of the points raised in this very useful and interesting short debate.
The House always listens with great respect to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. palmer) when he speaks on this subject. As his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, he is recognised as an authority on the matter. The hon. Member asked a number of questions, not all of which I can answer straight away, but I will look carefully at the record of his speech and if there is any further information I can give him I shall gladly do so. He quite rightly said that electricity is indispensable to the industrial community, in fact to a developing industrial society as a whole. I absolutely agree that the rate of growth in electricity is to a considerable extent a symbol of the rate of growth in the national economy and the general prosperity of the country. The two march together.
The rate of expansion, therefore, in electricity is very much affected by the rate of growth in demand for electricity, which itself is a reflection of the rate of growth in the economy. In the early 1960s, after the shortfall which had taken place and the gaps in supply meeting the demand experienced earlier, there followed the major plant build-up programme to try to bring in extra capacity as fast as possible. It would, therefore, be wrong to relate the present rate of commissioning of new plant or approval of consents for new plant to that particular period of intensity, which I think it is now generally assumed was rather greater than was fully justified by subsequent events. This was related to a rate of growth in the national economy which did not, in fact, materialise.
I hope that we can get to what I consider the most important point, which is a steady rate of growth. The difficulty is to find exactly what that is. It matters tremendously both to those who have to manage the industry itself and to those concerned with the supply and manufacture of plant and equipment for the industry that we should get as far as


possible a steady rate of growth over a period. The rate of return of capital was a point to which the hon. Member referred. It is important that there is a rate of return. I do not think it an unreasonable one.
I recognise the difficulties the industry has experienced. Those difficulties are highlighted by the need to raise prices and to increase tariffs to cover the costs and ensure that it meets its obligations over a period of time. The rate of return is related to a five-year period, and undoubtedly in that period there will be fluctuations. It is that sort of discipline, in management terms, which needs to be applied to a capital-intensive monopoly supplier of this kind.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about investment grants. The investment grant system is coming to an end and, therefore, the point will not be quite so high in the C.E.G.B. list of matters to be brought to the attention of Ministers as it has been. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says, that the industry has expressed its objection to the way this has been conducted in the past. Obviously, when the new system of allowances comes into being that will no longer obtain.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a bit harsh on the City of London, although the City can stand up to those things. He fell, rather surprisingly for him, for the old line, saying that these things could not be much value because they did not produce anything. As he knows only too well, they have immense value, particularly in terms of the invisible earning capacity and the assistance they give to our overall balance of payments.
The main point of the hon. Gentleman's observations centred round Wilberforce. In a few remarks in my introduction I tried to put the thing in balance, and I hope I was not unfair. I have been brief, and in that sense I probably did not cover it as fully as I might have done. I am aware of the observations in the report. I imagine that the hon. Member for Salford, West will be familiar with the terms of paragraph 12(2) where this is said:
We concluded that over the period since 1964 the industrial staff in the industry have co-operated in major changes in working practices and conditions which have facilitated the effective use of the large capital investment programme, have contributed to a far more effective use of manpower, and have made

possible a reduction of nearly 20 per cent. in the industrial labour force in the past three years.
I agree that the report singled out the special circumstances of the electricity supply industry. Those were some of the factors militating in its favour, in the view of the Inquiry.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central asked me to consider a question he had put down to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I am sure that he will get a reply to his letter. I do not know that there is any discrepancy here. He will recognise that in this industry particularly, there are a whole variety of terms by which to measure performance or output or whatever. There is a difference between output capacity and available capacity. I know that the hon. Gentleman will immediately recognise the difference. Output capacity is the maximum output of plant which inevitably varies gradually as new plant is commissioned or old plant is scrapped.

Mr. Palmer: I am anxious to obtain an explanation of what appear to be contradictions. Unless this is done the workers in the industry will have a real sense of continuing grievance about the way in which they were treated.

Sir J. Eden: We have had exchanges across the Floor of the House on that, and I do not want to be drawn into it at this time of the morning on this borrowing powers Order. I just hope that this can be settled speedily, in the interests of all concerned in the industry.
The difference between output capacity and available capacity has to be watched. Available capacity is necessarily less than output capacity, and the percentage of one would be a smaller figure than the percentage of the other. A lot of plant was out for normal engineering and technical reasons, but that does not make it easier to face the fact that a lot more plant was taken out in addition.
I have been asked about hiving off. "Hiving off" has become an unnecessarily emotive term. We are looking at the industry and at reorganisation and are not yet in a position to give a firm answer. I see no need for an atmosphere of suspense to hang over the industry on the wider question to which the hon. Member for Bristol, Central referred. As soon as we are able to give any information to the House we shall do so. I


cannot say now whether there will be a White Paper, because I am not anywhere near that point. I recollect speaking about this when I was in opposition, and if it ever came to the point I should have what I said then in the forefront of my mind.
I have said that I find it difficult to give precise figures about the impact of the postal strike. I know why the hon. Member for Salford, West brought this out. I am not deliberately underplaying it, but it is unnecessary to exaggerate it. Earlier estimates were that it might mean £15 million a week in cash flow. That sounds an enormous sum, but in the industry it is not so great proportionately, as the hon. Gentleman recognises. The reduced estimates suggest that it will be much less, probably about £10 million a week. This reflects the efforts of the council and the area boards in collecting the debts. I am sure that anyone who owes money to the electricity industry could find a way of paying it. The showrooms might provide a useful means for collecting the money.

Mr. Orme: There are many people who have a moral objection to doing work normally done by the Post Office.

Sir J. Eden: I understand that, and the easiest way of getting over it is for the postal strike to end.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) asked me about the balance between borrowing and self-financing. The proportion of self-financing has always been high in the industry and that is a matter for praise. It is well that it does finance so much of its requirements from its own resources. I am unable to say what the desirable proportion should be—whether it has gone too far or not far enough—but it has to measure this against the over all borrowing limits to which it must be subject in the interests of proper accountability.
Until the last few years, self-financing was under 50 per cent. from depreciation and retained profits, which meant that just over 50 per cent. came from borrowing. This rose to over 70 per cent. in 1968–69 and 1969–70. This was because of the low investment which has been taking place recently. If the growth becomes faster and investment goes up again, then the self-financing ratio is
Vol. 812

likely automatically to fall back to probably about 60 per cent. During the period of low growth and low investment, it is right that self-financing should be high, and as high as it has been.
The hon. Gentleman asked me an interesting question about the relationship between the area boards and the C.E.G.B. 1 do not think that it would be possible to allocate portions of this £300 million, for example, in borrowing powers to the Electricity Council, the C.E.G.B. and the area boards. The allocations would depend on the requirements of the boards themselves and the extent to which they can provide finance from their own resources.
In this rather brief summary, I hope I have covered the main points raised by hon. Members. I am grateful to them for the way they have done so and for the interesting debate. I hope that they will now feel able to support the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.57 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a Consolidation Bill given effect to two recommendations of the Law Commission, reproduced in Clauses 25(5) and 37(3). It was introduced in another place after a report by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which was printed on 9th December last year. It reported that the Committee was of opinion that the recommendations of the Law Commission were for the purposes of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law. The Committee approved the recommendations, making certain amendments to improve the form of the Bill and to bring it into conformity with the existing law.

4.58 a.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: It is regrettable that it is now


five o'clock in the morning and we are about to enter upon a debate on a very important Consolidation Measure. I will not attempt to make a long speech or, indeed, one of any content at all, other than to indicate that I hope that the Government will take into account the length of time the House has been sitting and of the great distress, discomfort and inconvenience that has been caused to the staff by virtue of the volume of business tabled at this sitting. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be satisfied to get the Second Reading and not proceed to the Committee stage now. It would be unfortunate if

Division No. 224.]
AYES
[5.0 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gummer, Selwyn
Pink, R. Bonner


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Atkins, Humphrey
Havers, Michael
Redmond, Robert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hornby, Richard
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Boscawen, Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bray, Ronald
Hunt, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
James, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
King, Tom (Bridgewater)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chapman, Sydney
Kinsey, J. R.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kitson, Timothy
Soref, Harold


Chichester-Clark, R.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David
Spence, John


Clegg, Walter
Longden, Gilbert
Sproat, Iain


Cockeram, Eric
MacArthur, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cormack, Patrick
Mather, Carol
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sutcliffe, John


Dixon, Piers
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eden, Sir John
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Money, Ernle
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fidler, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Weatherill, Bernard


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Worsley, Marcus


Fowler, Norman
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Gibson-Watt, David
Normanton, Tom



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Gray, Hamish
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Green, Alan
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)





NOES


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


English, Michael
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. James Wellbeloved and


Lawson, George
Swain, Thomas
Mr. Eric Deakins.


Orme, Stanley

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

CHARGE OF DUTY

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

we were forced to go into Committee and my hon. Friends felt it necessary to examine, and perhaps divide on, the Bill Clause by Clause. It would be reasonable, having got Second Reading, to put it down for consideration on another occasion, when the House would be more receptive and the Government might even get consideration unopposed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Eyre]:—

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 7.

5.10 a.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: This is an important Clause dealing with the charge of duty to be made in respect of mechanically propelled vehicles. I understand that the Clause does not represent any change in the law. But as the Government intend to inflict upon the Committee a very long sitting on the Bill by taking the


remaining stages now, it will be necessary for us to ask for a Division on the Clause.

The Solicitor-General: In answer to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) that the Government intend to inflict on the Committee a very long sitting on the Bill, I remind hon. Members that, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Clause makes no change in the law. In fact, the Bill does no more than consolidate certain enactments for the convenience of the public, the legal profession, and those concerned with the working of the law. The Bill was considered fully by the Joint

Division No. 225.]
AYES
[5.11 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gummer, Selwyn
Pink, R. Bonner


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Atkins, Humphrey
Havers, Michael
Redmond, Robert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hawkins, Paul
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hereby, Richard
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Boscawen, Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Ridley, Ha. Nicholas


Bray, Ronald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Brewis, John
Hunt, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
James, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chapman, Sydney
Kinsey, J. R.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kitson, Timothy
Soref, Harold


Chichester-Clark, R.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Spence, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David
Sproat, Iain


Clegg, Walter
Longden, Gilbert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cockeram, Eric
MacArthur, Ian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Cormack, Patrick
Mather, Carol
Sutcliffe, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Dixon, Piers
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Tebbit, Norman


Eden, Sir John
Moate, Roger
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Eyre, Reginald
Molyneaux, James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Money, Ernie
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fidler, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Weatherill, Bernard


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fowler, Norman
More, Jasper
Worsley, Marcus


Gibson-Watt, David
Normanton, Tom
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Osborn, John



Goodhew, Victor
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Gray, Hamish
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Mr. Keith Speed.


Green, Alan






NOES


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


English, Michael
Swain, Thomas
Mr. James Wellbeloved and


Orme, Stanley

Mr. Eric Deakins.

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION OF LICENCES, AND RATE OF DUTY

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Committee of both Houses, which reported in the manner I have indicated. The Bill was considered in another place and approved in a very brief time.

But for the proposal of the hon. Gentleman to divide against this Clause, and whatever else he may choose to do here-after, there would be no need for debate of any length to stand between the benificent provisions of this consolidating Measure and the people of this country who are entitled to it.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 96, Noes 5.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I rise merely to point out—

Mr. Raymond Gower: On a point of order. You will be aware, Sir Robert, that this is a consolidation Measure and that, as a result, the number of Clauses and the nature of them are predetermined by the nature of the existing legislation. To that extent, therefore, there is not the same need for the


procedure which obtains for Bills which are not of the consolidation variety.
I suggest that with a Bill like this the procedure should be adapted so as merely to refer the matter to the Committee, as it were, because it is unusual for us to have to devote a great deal of time voting on each individual Clause. I put it to you that it is the intention of hon. Members on both sides that a consolidation Measure like this should be dealt with in the manner of a consolidation Bill.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Cower: I had not completed my submission.
I suggest that the consequences of adopting a new procedure at this time must amount to almost a disregard of the rights of those who serve the House of Commons. For example, we must consider the kitchen staff. They are recruited and serve us in somewhat difficult circumstances.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's sentiments about the staff of Parliament—[Interruption.]— and the officers and staff in all the departments, including the police, have undoubtedly been put under considerable strain. But this has occurred because of the procedure which the Government have adopted for their business. You will recall, Sir Robert, that since ten o'clock we have dealt with the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, the Welfare Food (Extension of Definition) Order, 1971, the Agricultural and—

The Chairman: Order. I am well aware of what has been before us during the night. The hon. Gentleman need not waste his time telling me. What is his point of order?

Mr. Wellbeloved: In urging you to exercise your duty to protect hon. Mem-Members—

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Chairman: That is a reflection on the Chair. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that nobody stands more for the freedom of hon. Members than I do. He can, therefore, safely leave that line.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I accept that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".]—and I have

every confidence in your desire and ability to discharge that responsibility, and I was about to say that. [Interruption.] I am sure that you will strenuously resist any attempt by hon. Gentlemen opposite to shout me down.
Because of the amount of business put down by the Government and the need to discuss it, while I share the expression of sympathy of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) towards the staff of the House of Commons, I do not accept any responsibility for the fact that my hon. Friends and I have been diligently performing our responsibility to see that matters before Parliament are not rubber stamped but are properly considered.

The Chairman: The Question which I put was that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wellbeloved: This Clause has been slightly amended. Subsection (4)(c) is being brought into conformity with current practice in respect of decimal currency. It is regrettable that neither the Law Commission nor the Committee took the opportunity presented by this Measure to improve on the period under which the licence can be altered, which has just been consolidated to the two periods of 12 and four months.

Question put:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Robert. I wonder whether it is proper to raise the whole question of the cost to public funds of keeping the staff here at this time of night, also whether it is possible to ask you how many members of the staff have been kept here as a result of this exercise, and whether anything can be done from the Chair towards bringing them some sort of comfort for the kind of activities which have been going on tonight, when they have been kept out of their beds quite ridiculously into the early hours of the morning.

The CHAIRMAN stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the


Ayes had it, four Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

COLLECTION OF DUTY, ETC.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division, and The CHAIRMAN stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, eight Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

EXEMPTIONS FROM DUTY OF CERTAIN DESCRIPTIONS OF VEHICLE

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division, and The CHAIRMAN stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, eleven Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

EXEMPTIONS FROM DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH VEHICLE TESTING, ETC.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division, and The CHAIRMAN stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on

his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, nine Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Order. I would like the Committee to bear with me for a moment, if hon. Members will be so kind as to do so. There is nothing in the world that I would not do to support the rights of all hon. Members, however small minorities are. But I have a duty not only to the Committee but to Parliament as a whole, and that is to do my best to see that nothing is done to this House which may bring disrepute to it in the country as a whole. I beg hon. Members on my left to believe that I do not say that with a view to thwarting their perfect rights to go through the procedure which we are now going through. But I do beg them to note that when all this comes to be seen by the world in general on a consolidation Bill it will not look well.

Mr. Orme: Tell that to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

The Chairman: Order. I repeat what I said before. There is nothing I can do, and indeed there is nothing I would do, to stop them exercising their rights under the Standing Orders, but I felt it my duty to point this out to them in the interests of Parliament as a whole.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. This might assist your aim of trying to maintain the dignity of the House, Sir Robert. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are in this difficult position: the situation is thrust upon us because of the Government's understandable desire to get the maximum amount of business through at this sitting. In view of all the circumstances we will be more than happy to facilitate the passage of this Bill if the Government would be prepared to consider taking the Second Reading of the Hydrocarbon Oil (Customs and Excise) Bill [Lords], on which there would be only a minimum number of speeches from this side, and then not


proceed to the consideration stage of that Bill. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable proposition. If the Government are prepared to accept that sort of reasonable suggestion—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Having gone to this stage we on this side have a responsibility to show the country as a whole that we are not prepared to accept a situation in which the Government of the day can steamroller over the rights of hon. Members.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to raise that point of order. In view of the facts as we see them, and as this is a consolidation Bill, I could not possibly agree with his sentiments. That is not to say that he is not right to do what he believes to be best. But the responsibility for any damage to our Parliament and our institution must lie on his side of the House in this case.

Mr. Tom Boardman: On a point of order. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated that there is no objection to the individual Clauses, might not we consider voting upon them in groups? That might facilitate the procedure.

The Chairman: I am well aware that that would be a solution to our difficulties. Perhaps I could ask hon. Members if they would consent to my grouping the Clauses in the groups they see on the front of the Bill to save time, so that they would have some possibility of Divisions, at any rate, and we might make some real progress.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order. At this stage I do not think that that would be helpful. It may well be that with the passage of time a more reasonable solution will be suggested.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: I think that it will serve the best interests of the Committee if we get on, unless hon. Members wish to raise serious points.

Clause 6

EXEMPTIONS FROM DUTY IN RESPECT OF VEHICLES ACQUIRED BY OVERSEAS RESIDENTS.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division, and The CHAIRMAN stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, seven Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

MISCELLANEOUS EXEMPTIONS FROM DUTY

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Chichester-Clark (seated and covered): On a point d order. In view of the difficulty in which we increasingly find ourselves, and in view of the damage which is being caused to Parliament by the irresponsible action of a few hon. Members opposite, would it not be of some service to you, Sir Robert, if a member of the Opposition Front Bench—and Members of the Opposition Front Bench are strangely absent—were sent for so that we may know unequivocally their attitude to this consolidation Measure? Perhaps hon. Members opposite would be more responsible if the Leader of the Opposition were here.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw) (seated and covered): On a point of order. I think that we are all sensitive to the interests of the House of Commons and the importance of ensuring that procedures are properly carried through. Therefore, I


believe it is my duty as Leader of the House to put forward what I think is the sensible way to bring to an end a procedure which can do the House of Commons no good.
A consolidation Measure of this nature is normally allowed to go through the House quickly. I propose that the remaining stages of this Bill should be immediately allowed to pass, as is normal in such cases, and that the Second Reading of the next Bill should be given immediately without debate. I believe that would be reasonable. If that is done, I will agree to put down the remaining stages of the next Bill today. I would expect, with good reason, that it would go through in half an hour later tonight. I hope that would be an acceptable procedure for the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is a procedure acceptable to the House, I will put all the remaining Clauses of the Bill together.

Question put and agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 8 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOMS & EXCISE) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

Committee this day.

MASS MINIATURE RADIOGRAPHY SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

5.47 a.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I am sorry that the Government have not reversed the decision of the Labour Administration to phase out the mobile X-ray service. A report by the Medical Director of the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board for 1968 described mass radiography as
part of a revolutionary development in medicine the implications of which are not yet recognised.
He stated:
We are at the beginning of a new era, the era of pre-symptomatic diagnosis, in which treatment will begin before the patient feels ill, and if the disease is infectious before the patient becomes a danger to others.
Periodic health examinations are being increasingly practised by private physicians and by industrial medical officers. Such examinations depend largely on the possibility of pre-symptomatic diagnosis. Up to recently in nearly all cases the symptoms have selected the sick person from the healthy majority and eventually led him to the clinic. But examinations of a wider kind have been made with the evolution of mass techniques. Mass radiography was the first of these mass examination techniques. It was hoped that this would be the forerunner of other techniques in which early diagnosis could forestall illness or improve chances of recovery. This routine chest radiography has served the individual and the community by fighting against three causes of ill health: tuberculosis, heart disease, and lung cancer.
While the service is to be run down, it is to be included in hospital diagnostic X-ray departments. But is it realised that these departments are already overworked and in many cases have to limit the open access of practitioners in holiday times? Essentially the question is whether we shall get an efficient screening by changing to the system which the Ministry suggests or by continuing with the present arrangements.
I ask the Minister why he is so certain that industry will be served so well in the


future. I have seen very considerable medical advice which suggests that the discontinuance of the mass radiography service is medically undesirable. It is all very well that the Minister's medical advisers, we are told, agree with this decision, but what consultation has taken place with practitioners on the ground and with industry? Only last night I spoke to a leader of industry employing 2,000 people. He underlined most strongly the value of the mobile X-ray system and the service which it was performing for industry. The Minister should not discount this too lightly. I believe the decision was taken without adequate assessment of medical considerations or consultations or of consultations with industry.
I feel certain that from the industrial point of view the facility of providing a mobile unit at the place of employment was a major factor in obtaining efficient screening. When firms are obliged to pay for each X-ray and lose productivity by sending their employees several miles for X-ray, it is obvious that screening will become non-existent with the risk of tuberculosis from an increasingly immigrant population, this decision seems deplorable. How can the new system be efficient?
I will now deal with some of the details concerning tuberculosis and its detection. The reason which the Minister has given for closing down the mass X-ray service is that detection of active cases of tuberculosis has fallen steadily from 8,720 cases in 1954 to 2,619 in 1967. But surely the fact that there were so many fewer cases in 1967 was in itself a case for continuing the service. There were 15,665 cases of other diseases in 1968 which were also screened. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) is present to support me, particularly in regard to the observation I have just made.
Has the Minister the latest figures in regard to screening? May I ask for a detailed breakdown of the figures, particularly with reference to country and city areas? The evidence that I have leads me to believe that the disease is far from eradicated in big cities. Is it not a fact that in Greater London in 1967 there were 2,450 notifications, almost 50 cases a week, and the disease persists because a pool of unrecognised cases

which can be detected only by chest X-ray examination continues to exist? Is it not a fact that in 1967, as a result of the radiography of 108,000 people in South-West London, 165 cases of active pulmonary tuberculosis were discovered and that 10 years ago the corresponding figures were 183 cases for 93,000 people?
If these figures are correct, and I have no reason to believe that they are not, they give no cause for phasing out of mobile X-ray units, especially in the big cities. I should like to have further evidence from the Minister. I believe that the view that tuberculosis has almost disappeared from the city is prematurely optimistic. Is the Minister satisfied that the incidence among immigrants is small? Would he say what is happening in rural and city areas and what is the policy towards schools?
In addition to the work done for the detection of tuberculosis, screening is also carried out for the detection of heart diseases and lung cancer. Consideration must be given to the useful work done for many people suffering from these diseases. What further figures has the Minister about this? I have been particularly impressed by the statement made by the Borough of Hammersmith in rejecting the reasons for the running down of the mass X-ray units. Its facts and figures emphasise the necessity to keep the mobile X-ray service on the ground that unselective chest radiography still finds two-thirds of the total number of significant TB cases. It emphasises that a disturbing feature is the proportion of infectious cases—24·2 per cent.—which is the highest for many years. It states that an analysis of pulmonary tuberculosis cases show that the largest numbers are found in the examinations of factory and office workers in open sessions for the general public. This certainly suggests that the Minister's instructions have been premature.
Is this being done because of the cost of the service? Does the Minister fear an increase in capital costs? We have no figures about capital cost although it was mentioned in a circular at the time of the Labour Administration. What is the cost of saving money and capital? Could a charge be made to cover the cost per person? Certainly the industrialist of whom I spoke earlier would be only too glad to pay a small sum for


this service, for the efficiency of industry.
Hammersmith estimates the cost of finding one active case is £203. If 100,000 people were charged 4s., less than the price of 20 cigarettes, this cost could be met. The Minister is being penny wise and pound foolish. What is the cost of treatment? Surely it is much better to deal with people at an earlier date than to have to deal with them later when the symptoms are found because they go to a clinic?
I have found strong feelings about the phasing-out of this service. If it were not for the lateness of the hour I know that many more hon. Member would be supporting me now. Even this number is good for the time. I know of over 50 M.P.s who would support me, including doctors, who also feel strongly about this, particularly those who have benefited from the service.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that the service will still be available in the hospitals. Surely there is a shortage of doctors in the hospitals. This will overload the services even more. I am certain that prevention is better than cure. That is common sense. It is up to the Minister to produce far more evidence than he has so far to justify the decision to phase out this excellent and efficient mobile X-ray service which has given such service to the community. I ask him to explain to the House and the country that he is not being penny wise and pound foolish and that he realises the value of putting prevention before cure.

5.59 a.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) talked of support in the House. I can assure him that he was very much under-estimating his support on this important subject. He has put his case most graciously.
If this decision was taken on cost grounds, then it was deplorable. If, on the other hand, it has been taken on health grounds, then the House needs rather more information than has been made available so far. It is regrettable that we do not have an industrial health service, which would meet the point of the industrialist mentioned earlier by the hon. Member. I hope that the Govern-

ment will look at this carefully, with a view to reconsidering the decision which we think they have already taken.

6.0 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clear and cogent way in which he has portrayed his anxieties over the Government's policy on the future of the Mass Miniature Radiography Service.
It would be helpful if I were to comment on some of the misconceptions which seem to have obtained some currency. The decision to reduce the service was not based primarily on financial considerations, nor was it taken hastily or taken without the most expert medical advice. Indeed, it has long been the view of our medical advisers that general population screening for tuberculosis was no longer achieving a result comparable with the considerable effort involved.
Another view I should like to dispel is that the Mass Miniature Radiography Service will be withdrawn abruptly and completely. The rundown will be slow and deliberate, and a substantial part of the service will be retained for some time.
I realise, nevertheless, that many people are puzzled why a service that seems to have played such a significant part in preventive medicine should be reduced at all, and I am very conscious of the concern that has been expressed by so many responsible bodies, among them trade unions and trade councils. Many feel that people should be urged to make more use of the service, but I could not support such action.
The first point we should remember is that, although the service has made an important contribution, and can continue to make a contribution, to the detection of this disease, and to the reduction of its incidence, it has not been the only factor in the immense strides that have been made to control it. Nor could this service itself ever achieve the total eradication of pulmonary tuberculosis.
In the years before the introduction of the service there had been a continuing decline in the number of deaths each year from this disease due to rising standards of living and better hygiene. This improvement was accelerated in the years after the war by the introduction of B.C.G. vaccination, by improved


treatment by chemotherapy, and by continued advances in the state of public health and living conditions.
My hon. Friend asked for some figures and I will give a few to show what improvement there has been. In the years 1945–49 the average number of deaths from pulmonary tuberculosis was 19,236. By 1969 this figure had fallen to 1,092. The part played by mass miniature radiography since the inception of the National Health Service has been as follows. In 1946 the number of persons examined by this means was 571,697. This figure rose to a peak in 1956 of 3,617,550. Since 1960 the number examined each year has stayed fairly constant at a little over 3 million, until in 1968 it dropped to 2,882,730, with a further decline to 2,663,670 in 1969.
I think these are roughly the figures quoted by my hon. Friend. The number of new cases of active tuberculosis—that is to say, those requiring treatment or supervision—discovered by this service in 1954, which was the peak year, was 8,748; this has declined steadily to 2,358 in 1969. My hon. Friend has given some statistics for South-West London; those he quotes for 1967 should, I think, refer to 1968. This is a small point, I must confess. But I am unable to reconcile the earlier year he refers to with my information. However, to give a 10-year comparison, in 1958 94,300 people were examined in the area, among which 274 cases of active tuberculosis were found. No record is kept by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of a breakdown of cases of tuberculosis detected as between city and rural areas. However, a comparison between the Liverpool and South-Western Regions shows that in 1969 in the former 75 cases were detected out of 83,270 examined and in the latter, the more rural region, 78 out of 93,150. My hon. Friend's figures for notifications in the G.L.C. area for 1967 are correct, but these are not related to mass radiography.
What is of great significance here, however, is the proportion of cases detected for the number of people examined, and this means a great variation depending on the particular group being considered. For example, in 1969 the rate of detection for volunteers from the general public

and for office and factory surveys was only one in 2,000, whereas for those referred by general practitioners the rate was six per 2,000.

Mr. Ernie Money: Will my hon. Friend deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) with regard to the discovery of heart disease and lung cancer by this means?

Mr. Alison: I shall come to that point. In any event—going back to the imbalance between general and more specific services—the Department is advised that the continuance of the service for general population, office and factory surveys cannot any longer be justified on the basis of the sharp imbalance which I have described.
The case for retaining the service for general practitioners is, clearly, stronger if they have no other means of referral or if access to hospitals is difficult for their patients. Over the past years the hospital radiological services have been improved and open access by general practitioners extended so that in general throughout the country open access is available to them. Thus, for these doctors mass miniature radiography should no longer be necessary for the referral of their patients suspected of having active tuberculosis. Nevertheless, in order to avoid exacerbating the shortage of radiologists to which my hon. Friend referred, all boards have shown their desire to keep mobile or static units for the use of general practitioners where open access to hospital radiological departments is not adequate, and particular attention is paid to rural areas. In 1969 43 per cent. of all active tuberculosis cases detected were in patients referred by general practitioners. This leaves 57 per cent. "unselected", not two-thirds as quoted by my hon. Friend. But the important point is that the proportion between detection and examination for general practitioners is six times that for random surveys.
Finally, there remain groups at special risk, such as those in prison; persons known to have been in contact with a tuberculosis suspect, and where a rapid screening service is needed; or where there is known to be an unusual prevalence, such as among Asian immigrants.


My hon. Friend has very rightly shown concern for schoolchildren. We do not, of course, favour the radiological examination of children unless there is some special reason such as a positive Mantoux test. However, in 1969, 16,930 random tests were made, and only three cases found. There are other safeguards for children. They are offered B.C.G. vaccination at 12 to 13 years; and it is generally considered desirable for local authority employees and other persons whose occupations bring them into contact with groups of children—for example, teachers—to have chest X-rays, and these are now provided free by hospital radiological departments. Where necessary, the Mass Miniature Radiography Service can help in this work.
Of the chest ailments that can also be detected by mass miniature radiography that which most concerns the public is lung cancer. In 1969, 3,696 cases were detected by mass miniature radiography compared with 2,188 in 1959. The difference between this disease and tuberculosis, however, is that in the latter cases detection will very likely result in cure. In cancer it will not. A great deal of work has gone into determining the effect of early detection of lung cancer by X-ray on the prognosis for this disease, and there is, unfortunately, no evidence on which it can be said with confidence that the prognosis is thereby improved. The most effective prevention of lung cancer lies in a change in the smoking habits of the population, and it is certainly illusory for a heavy smoker to rely on frequent X-rays to detect this disease in time for it to be cured.
The value of mass miniature radiography for early detection and diagnosis of heart disease is a more complex question. Cardiac abnormalities can, of course, be detected, but my medical advice is that mass X-ray can only show one factor in a disease process and that there are simpler methods by which other signs can be identified. In 1959, 7,289 such abnormalities were detected by mass X-ray as against 8,871 in 1969.
The incidence of tuberculosis among the immigrant population from Asia is markedly higher than for the rest of the population. New immigrants are now X-rayed in their country of origin before an entry voucher is granted, except for

the wives and dependants of those already here, in which case they are checked on arrival and referred to the medical officer of health of the area where they will reside, if this is necessary. A recent report on Birmingham suggests that this higher incidence has not adversely affected the decline in notifications among the British-born population among whom they live; and in those sections of the Asian age groups that have now become static, tuberculosis notifications are falling. The point I am making is that this is a comparatively small and readily identifiable group of the population and that specific direction towards them for screening for tuberculosis is practicable without retaining general population screening.
My hon. Friend has referred to the cost of the service, and has suggested that the public would be willing to pay to retain it. As I have said, financial savings have not been a determining factor in the policy for this service. I could not accept that we should charge for a service to provide general population surveys which we do not believe to be justified; or to charge for general practitioner references or surveys of special groups at special risk which are justified. In 1969–70 the service cost £1,003,000, all of which was running costs. No extra expense is caused in equipping hospital radiological departments, since the policy is to improve these independently of the policy for mass radiography. The cost of each examination averages out at 38p; the average cost of detecting a case of active tuberculosis is £425; but for general population surveys it is £671; for office and factory surveys it is £873; and for general practitioner referrals it is £125. It is true that the treatment of active pulmonary tuberculosis is likely to be cheaper in its early stages. Treatment will vary from two years on drugs without hospitalisation to hospital treatment for three to six months followed by treatment with drugs. Many of the cases detected by mass X-ray are likely to need hospitalisation; some might have regressed without treatment. Thus, I doubt whether it would be useful to attempt to draw a balance, more so since cost is not the important issue.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasise that the policy that we are now


following is neither precipitate nor dramatic. There are, as my hon. Friend will be aware, two components of the service: the mobile unit and the static unit. Information provided by regional hospital boards in June, 1970, showed that there were 49 mobile and 31 static units in England at that time. Proposals submitted by boards for the future shape of the service show that by the middle of next year these units will have been reduced by 17 mobile and two static units, and that this situation is likely to be held for some time.
At the same time boards will be able to direct the savings in effort achieved in the operation of this service to other priority needs, including the radiological departments of hospitals, whose contribution to patient care is of such vital importance. I welcome the evidence that this method of mass prevention has been successful, and I do not regard as disappointing the redirection of its work in a more beneficial manner.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Six o'clock a.m.